POLICY R01 (II): SPATIAL DESIGN OF DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22320

Received: 16/03/2019

Respondent: Essex Bridleways Association

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The five points made refer to issues that do not consider access for all user groups and should be amended.

Change suggested by respondent:

1.To make this Plan sound, we suggest that any such green open space and buffer created within this development is made fully accessible for all user groups including equestrians.
2.To make this Plan sound, we suggest that the words 'fully accessible for all user groups as far as practicable' are included within this Policy.
3. To make this Plan sound, we suggest that point 7 incorporates 'multi-user routes' rather than cycle lanes throughout this development so as not to discriminate against equestrians. After all, this development should cater for both leisure and utility/commuting journeys.
4. To make this Plan sound, a dedicated multi-user crossing be created over the A127 and potentially Pegasus crossings on the two busy roads east and west of the site.
5. To make this Plan sound, we suggest that the Street Hierarchy caters for ALL users by default rather than enhancing routes which connect back to pedestrian routes; the aim should be a fully-connected multi-user network throughout the new development. Point c should therefore be reworded thus: '...enhancement and upgrading of public footpaths and other public rights of way (such as Nightingale Lane, an existing definitive Byway) and any bridleways throughout the GBI network, to coherently connect back to both residential pedestrian links and multi-user links; and...'

Full text:

1.Policy RO1 3 points 2 and 6: again, our previous comments with regard to embedding full access principles within the spatial design policies apply.
2. Part 4 point 3 mentions pathways through the village, and we would prefer to see the words 'fully accessible for all user groups as far as practicable' included within this Policy.
3. Part 7 deals with sustainable travel, and our comments above apply also here. It is simply unacceptable to cater for only one user group - any dedicated off-road route should be multi-user and not limited only to cyclists. Equestrians should not be discriminated against.
4. Part 8 point 1: as mentioned above it is imperative that safe crossing points for all users over major roads are provided otherwise car use will continue, and any such crossing points must be accessible to ALL user groups, including equestrians.
5. Part 10 point 3: it is unacceptable to only consider enhancing the public rights of way network purely for pedestrians when a byway is in place which is accessible to ALL users. The NPPF contains an aspiration to enhance the public rights of way network and make it accessible to more users especially where they link with routes with higher rights, and where a major development such as this is being planned from a 'blank sheet' then the default for any off-road routes must be masterplanned to include all users.

Support

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22385

Received: 18/03/2019

Respondent: Sport England

Representation Summary:

The approach to the spatial design of the Dunton Hills Garden Village is supported especially in relation to:

* Green Infrastructure - section C
* Sport, Recreational, Leisure and Public Open Space - section C
* Sustainable Travel - section G
* Social Infrastructure - section L

This approach would be considered to accord with Government policy in section 8 of the NPPF in relation to 'promoting healthy and safe communities. The reference in paragraph 9.52 of the reasoned justification to the principles of active design guiding the evolution of the village layout, street hierarchy and connectivity is particularly welcomed.

Full text:

The approach to the spatial design of the Dunton Hills Garden Village is supported especially in relation to:

* Green Infrastructure - section C
* Sport, Recreational, Leisure and Public Open Space - section C
* Sustainable Travel - section G
* Social Infrastructure - section L

This approach would be considered to accord with Government policy in section 8 of the NPPF in relation to 'promoting healthy and safe communities. The reference in paragraph 9.52 of the reasoned justification to the principles of active design guiding the evolution of the village layout, street hierarchy and connectivity is particularly welcomed.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22402

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Essex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The development should provide:

* Real, measurable gains for wildlife and biodiversity
* Effective water management, pollution and climate control
* Connectivity between wild spaces
* Improved health, wellbeing and quality of life
* Easy access to high quality, wildlife-rich, natural green space

Change suggested by respondent:

Ecological Networks, Biodiversity Net Gain, Green Infrastructure and Public
Realm
C.
a. a highly connected and biodiverse ecological network that incorporates existing habitats of value and natural features, "delivers a net measurable gain in biodiversity", and where relevant new habitats such as trees, tree lines and hedges, hedgerows, ponds and
lakes...

Full text:

We wish to make clear that we remain concerned about the ecological and environmental impacts of this strategic allocation. With regards to the proposed spatial design we neither support nor object to this policy but retain a neutral position.

We welcome the following policy statement, but are of the opinion that the commitment to delivering biodiversity net gain needs to be clearly and unequivocably stated:
Ecological Networks, Biodiversity Net Gain, Green Infrastructure and Public
Realm
C.
a. a highly connected and biodiverse ecological network that incorporates existing habitats of value and natural features, and where relevant new habitats such as trees, tree lines and hedges, hedgerows, ponds and
lakes...
We would advise that the policy wording should be amended.

With regards to statement (b):

b. a variety of activity nodes and treatments for recreation and leisure opportunities throughout the GBI, including public natural parkland,
pockets of village greens, local nature reserve, allotment sites, sports pitches and fields;

We wish to add the following comment:
The south-facing slopes of the central ridge provide an ideal location for the recreation of Thames Terrace-type grassland habitat

Eastlands Spring LoWS should be protected, buffered and enhanced; designation as a local nature reserve and appropriate management to maximise biodiversity should provide a wildlife-rich, natural environment in perpetuity.


The development should provide:

* Real, measurable gains for wildlife and biodiversity and make a demonstrable, positive contribution to nature's recovery.

* Effective water management, pollution and climate control provided by green spaces, sustainable urban drainage, green roofs where possible, trees, hedgerows, wildflower meadows and other natural features.

* Connectivity between wild spaces - enabling both wildlife and people to move through the landscape, and for natural processes to operate effectively.

* Improved health, wellbeing and quality of life for people living and working nearby.

* Easy access to high quality, wildlife-rich, natural green space for everyone, providing daily opportunities to experience wildlife.

Benefits of this approach

A housing development designed with environmental sensitivity and green infrastructure at its heart can deliver multiple social, environmental and economic benefits. Nature-rich housing can provide benefits for everyone - from developers to home-owners.

Benefits for wildlife:

* No loss of key wildlife sites - better protection of the already diminished wildlife resource.

* More space for wildlife - a substantial increase in the creation and restoration of habitats, through additional funding and resources, for example Section 106 agreements and conservation covenants - contributing to an overall increase in the abundance and diversity of wildlife and an improvement of soil and catchment health.

* Improved connectivity of wildlife habitats - both within the development and linking to the wider landscape and ecological networks beyond.

* Buildings that are more wildlife-friendly - with integral swift, sparrow and bat boxes, pollinator and insect-friendly structures and connected spaces for hedgehogs.

* Reduced emissions - reducing carbon emissions, pollutants and water use to help minimise threats to wildlife.

Benefits for people:

* Daily enjoyment of nature - residents will experience and benefit from contact with wildlife and wild places in their daily lives, because there is wildlife around them near to home.

* Improved health - accessible natural green spaces for fresh air, exercise and quiet contemplation improve health and wellbeing, for example by helping to lower levels of heart disease, obesity, stress and depression.

* Protection against extremes of climate - natural green spaces and trees within the development will help stabilise temperature and reduce pollution.

* Safer transport routes - networks of natural green spaces will provide safe and attractive pedestrian and cycle routes.

* Sense of community - natural green space in and around housing can provide a shared space for the local community to come together and socialise - reducing isolation.

Benefits for the economy and wider society:

* Cost-effective environmental protection - providing green space in and around housing is a cost-effective and sustainable way of increasing environmental resilience, for example by reducing surface water flooding and improving air quality.

* Employment - if the new residential community can get involved in the planning and management of the natural green space within the development this could provide jobs and volunteering opportunities.

* Space for local food - networks of natural green space in and around housing areas provide opportunities for local food production

* Attracting investment - a high quality development rich in natural green space will attract further investment from business and visitors.

* Reduced health-care costs - people living in developments with more green space are likely to place fewer demands on the NHS, as they enjoy better health and higher quality of life.


Benefits for developers:

* Satisfied customers - houses and developments set in natural green space are more desirable to buyers.

* Market value - houses in greener developments can have a higher market value.

* Enhanced brand value - developers that take a lead on nature build their brand and change the sector as a whole.

* Improved high-calibre skills recruitment - such developers are also more likely to attract up-and-coming graduates by demonstrating a genuine commitment to the environment.

* Improved environmental performance - helping drive higher ranking in sustainability and nature indices, making the direct links to the benefits of a natural capital approach.

* Happier communities - new houses designed to retain existing natural features with high quality greenspace are more acceptable to existing residents.

Principles guiding this approach

The Dunton Hills development should result in:

* A measurable improvement for wild species and habitats, avoiding any loss of or damage to Eastlands Spring LoWS and other wildlife habitats.

* More than compensating for any habitat that is lost - where damage to existing habitats is unavoidable, mitigation must bring about an overall gain in habitats. This should be assessed objectively using an improved version of the Defra biodiversity metric.

* Creating new habitat - habitat creation should be a standard feature of all new housing development, wherever it is.

* Designing in existing habitats - the new housing must work with as much existing habitat as possible. For example, retaining the existing local wildlife site and stream, the copses and hedges as integral features of the new development.

All residents having lasting access to nearby nature, which means:

* Providing wildlife on the doorstep - space for wildlife must be designed into the new development, much of this should be easily accessible to people.

* Ensuring the natural spaces are well managed for posterity - maintaining local green spaces is as essential as maintaining roads, power and other important infrastructure. Financial planning should account for this at the outset, through a service charge or capital endowment.

* Empowering communities - Dunton Hills is a major housing development and provision should be made to empower local residents to come together to maintain shared spaces, grow food and understand the area they live in.

* Engaging civil society - local charities and social enterprises have skills and experience that will be vital to ongoing community engagement.

This can be ensured by:

* Using ecological network maps - such maps should be developed from local, up to date data

* Developing within environmental limits - decisions about the planning, design and construction of new housing must be based on a thorough understanding of the natural environment's capacity to meet the demands placed on it.

* Employing ecological expertise - when making decisions on land use and new development planning authorities should consult experienced ecologists and ensure they have access to high quality wildlife and environmental data.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22440

Received: 18/03/2019

Respondent: Essex County Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

2. Justified
3. Effective.

Policy R01 (II) J. b. makes reference to the A127 as an access to the site. The remainder of the DHGV policies do not define access to the site, which is inconsistent with all other site allocation policies. Appendix 2 does refer to access from A128 Tilbury Road. ECC do not support access to the site from the A127, and reference to the A127 should be deleted from this policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

Delete reference to 'A127' in Policy R01 (II) J. a.

Full text:

2. Justified
3. Effective.

Policy R01 (II) J. b. makes reference to the A127 as an access to the site. The remainder of the DHGV policies do not define access to the site, which is inconsistent with all other site allocation policies. Appendix 2 does refer to access from A128 Tilbury Road. ECC do not support access to the site from the A127, and reference to the A127 should be deleted from this policy.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23166

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Basildon Borough Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Although the Plan includes specific references that the joint borough boundary needs a degree of landscape and Green Belt treatment to maintain a visual separation, it does not elaborate as to how this will be achieved. It is disappointing that the joint study in 2017, Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options Study, does not form part of the referenced and published evidence base for the Plan, nor do the outcomes from this work appear to have informed Policy R01(II) as sought through the earlier Duty to Cooperate engagement. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II) and Paragraph 9.36.

Change suggested by respondent:

The measures set out in the Joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options 2017 should be acknowledged in Paragraph 9.36 and incorporated into Policy 9.36 to make it more justified and effective at mitigating the impact the development would otherwise have on the Basildon Borough. This would lead to an effective policy outcome identified as being necessary during Duty to Cooperate engagement to manage this cross-boundary issue. It is considered that as a matter of principle, this would help address the Council's previous Regulation 18 objections as to how the boundary would be treated and how the new community could exist side by side the existing smaller settlement of Dunton Wayletts in the Basildon Borough.

Full text:

This letter serves as the approved response from Basildon Borough Council to the Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan Regulation 19 public consultation.
Please be advised that for all of the consultation points below, the Council would like to attend the future oral hearings as part of the Plan's Examination in Public.
As a neighbouring authority, a Duty to Cooperate public body and a key partner in the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA), Basildon Borough Council has taken the opportunity to review and consider the potential implications for the Basildon Borough that may arise from Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan and determine whether it considers it to be compliant with necessary legislation and whether it meets the tests of soundness.
1) Is the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 legally compliant?
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 and supporting documents. It considers that whilst it disagrees with aspects of the Plan from a soundness perspective that it is however legally compliant.
2) Does the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meet the tests of soundness?
The Council does not believe that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meets the tests of soundness in all of its policy areas. It therefore makes the following 1 representation in support of an aspect of the Plan and 17 representations where it considers the Local Plan is unsound and requires modifications to make it sound.
Supporting Representations
Consultation Point: Chapter 1
Soundness - Effectiveness & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, it considers that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere. To demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, strategic policy-making authorities should
planning.policy@brentwood.gov.uk
SERVED BY EMAIL ONLY
prepare and maintain one or more Statements of Common Ground, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these.
A major step forward for effective cooperation has been the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Essex County, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Councils to form the ASELA. This has ensured that there is now a more coordinated, collective working on a 'place vision' for the sub region, which recognises one of the key delivery tools will be a statutory Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). A Statement of Common Ground has also been agreed between the ASELA to ensure it is embedded into the Local Development Schemes of all the local planning authorities with resources committed to its preparation during 2019/2021. This will ensure it sets the foundations for planning at a broader spatial level, determining how growth and infrastructure can be better coordinated to positively influence place-making in South Essex and provide a more prosperous area for people to live, work, study and visit. The Statement of Common Ground recognises that the planning landscape of South Essex is not perfect and not all authorities can wait for the JSP to be completed before their Local Plans are advanced. It accepts that the JSP will have to be mindful, in particular of Basildon, Brentwood and Castle Point's and the reality that their Local Plans are already too advanced to be paused.
The Council has noted Brentwood Council's commitment in paragraph 1.13 to work as a member of ASELA on a process to develop a long-term growth ambition that would underpin strategic spatial, infrastructure and economic priorities across the wider sub-region. It is acknowledged that this is in accordance with the South Essex JSP Statement of Common Ground - June 2018; of which Basildon and Brentwood Borough Councils are one of the seven joint signatories.
Work on the JSP is at an early stage with Regulation 18 consultation due to take place during 2019, followed by Regulation 19 in 2020, with examination in public and adoption not expected to be until 2020/2021. It will cover a longer plan period extending to 2038; slightly longer than both the Basildon and Brentwood Local Plans. Paragraph 1.38 of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan references that its own allocations can contribute towards some of the delivery of early growth during the JSP plan-period; a position that is also applicable for the soon to be submitted Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034. It is welcomed that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan has mirrored the intent of the Basildon Borough Local Plan in Paragraphs 1.35-1.38 that following the adoption of the JSP, it may be necessary to review the Plan, at least in part, to ensure any opportunities for additional growth and infrastructure provision in the Borough, that may otherwise be additionally identified in the JSP, can be realised. The Council fundamentally supports this policy approach as meeting the soundness tests of being a) effective and b) in accordance with national policy.
The Council considers this to be compatible to its own position and underpins the collective efforts to get an "effective mechanism" in place to address strategic, cross boundary matters in a more holistic and planned manner that has greater potential to realise positive outcomes to South Essex communities. Looking ahead, the Council embraces the opportunity presented by Brentwood Borough Council being part of the ASELA and the JSP, in order to tackle strategic, cross-boundary matters holistically to ensure sustainable growth solutions are achieved that benefit all communities.
Objecting Representations
Consultation Point: Whole Plan
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. The Council, as a neighbouring Borough and Duty to Cooperate body, has reviewed and considered previous versions of the Local Plan and its preparatory documents and submitted relevant representations under Regulation 18 consultations. The Council formally wishes to express its disappointment that given fundamental
evidence has been 'in development', but not published during much of its preparation. It has been significantly difficult, therefore, to digest the Plan's rationale and approach as it has evolved. This includes the entire Green Belt Review, Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study, Local Plan Viability Assessment and Transport Assessment which were not published until the month before Brentwood Council considered the Publication Local Plan in November 2018. It is accepted that not all evidence can be completed by each consultation stage and much may remain as a continual draft until Regulation 19, however it is considered this has created a lack of transparency during critical plan-making stages and contributed to the scale of representations from Basildon Council for its Regulation 19 response.
During 2017/2018, officers from Basildon, Thurrock and Essex County Councils, facilitated by an officer from Rochford District Council, jointly sought to understand and address with Brentwood Borough Council how the Brentwood Borough Local Plan, in particular the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) strategic allocation, could impact on neighbouring authority areas, particularly in terms of infrastructure and service provision. Meetings were held, and correspondence exchanged, in an effort to seek solutions and resolutions to previous Regulation 18 objections/ observations from all three Councils. The intention was to appreciate the evidenced rationale for identifying the DHGV strategic allocation and ensuring neighbouring authorities could engage more effectively to identify and manage cross-boundary impacts. Despite this engagement, it is considered that not all information and assurances sought from Brentwood Borough Council have been provided and this brings into question the soundness of the rationale and choices made in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan.
.
As such, all of Basildon Council's previous responses to Regulation 18 consultations are enclosed as supplementary evidence to the Regulation 19 consultation; affirming that many of the comments made in respects this consultation response have been raised previously, but remain unanswered or inadequately addressed. It is uncertain how the Plan has been informed by this previous input. It is considered that this is not a justified approach and has resulted in a Plan which is less effective at tackling strategic, cross-boundary issues.
Consultation Point: SP02: Managing Growth, Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is acknowledged that Brentwood Borough Council commissioned David Couttie Associates (DCA) in 2013 to undertake a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and define its Housing Market Area (HMA). This concluded that Brentwood Borough's administrative area was a self-contained HMA. This is different to the Basildon Borough, which is a sub-area (with Castle Point) of the much larger South Essex HMA, which also incorporates Rochford, Southend on Sea and Thurrock. The Brentwood SHMA, which was most recently updated in November 2018, forms part of the evidence base for identifying the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing in Brentwood Borough. However, NPPF/2019 (published after the Publication Local Plan was approved by Brentwood Borough Council in November 2018, in February 2019) now requires housing needs to be calculated in accordance with the Standard Methodology set out in national Planning Practice Guidance.
Basildon Borough Council has acknowledged that this has seen the OAN for Brentwood Borough change three times over the course of the last year as follows:
* In January 2018, the Brentwood SHMA January 2018 identified an OAN for Brentwood of 380. This was calculated using the SHMA Planning Practice Guidance that underpinned the NPPF/2012;
* In July 2018, NPPF/2018 was launched introducing the standard methodology for calculating objectively assessed housing need. The standard methodology requires the use of the most recently published household projections as the starting point. At that time, the 2014-based CLG Household Projections formed that starting point resulting in an OAN for Brentwood of 452 homes per annum; and
* In September 2018, 2016-based ONS Household Projections were published, revising the starting point for the standard method calculation. For Brentwood Borough, these projections showed a reduced rate of household growth going forward, resulting in a reduced housing requirement for Brentwood of 350 homes per annum.
It has been noted by Basildon Council that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan uses this latest 2016 projection to define the minimum OAN target.
The reduced rate of household growth in the 2016-based ONS Household Projections was highlighted as a nation-wide issue driving down the OAN calculations in around two-thirds of authorities, although not Basildon. This resulted in the standard methodology only identifying around 215,000 homes per annum supply for England against a national policy target of 300,000 homes per annum. Consequently, in October 2018 MHCLG launched a consultation on technical changes to the standard methodology, seeking for authorities to continue using the 2014-based CLG Household Projections in the interim. On the 19 February 2019, the Government's response to this consultation was published indicating that the Government will be making clear in national Planning Practice Guidance that the 2016-based ONS Household Projections should not be used for the standard methodology calculation, and the 2014-based CLG Household Projections should be used instead.
The Brentwood Local Plan therefore, which makes provision for 456 homes per annum does meet just over its full OAN for housing, having regard to the standard methodology calculation of need based on the 2014 CLG Household Projections (452 homes per annum), as explained in required by Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20190220 and Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 2a-005-20190220) that has been adjusted following the Government's response to the technical consultation.
The Brentwood Local Plan, however, as drafted and approved by Brentwood Council in November 2018, sets out in Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 that the housing target for Brentwood is set at 350 homes per annum and it proposes an annual housing supply buffer of 20% taking total supply of 456 homes per annum. This was considered at the time as offering additional flexibility throughout the plan period. This is now not the case as the 2016-based ONS Household Projections must be discounted, as above, with the baseline reverting to the 2014-based projections. This results in a Plan which will now have an insignificant flexibility in its land supply; a component which was considered justified and fundamental to the Plan's strategy when it was approved in November 2018.
When this new position is viewed alongside the variable housing target, it is considered this could cause the plan to be less effective and justified. The initial housing target of 310 homes per annum between 2016 and 2023, should, according to the Plan, increase to 584 homes per annum beyond 2023. It is noted that this increase is substantially reliant on the new Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, which according to the Housing Trajectory set out in Appendix 1 is expected to commence housing delivery in 2023/24, within the first five years of the Plan. That scheme is expected to deliver at the initial ambitious rate of 100 homes per annum upwards from thereon, reaching 300 homes per annum by 2026. These are considered to be overly optimistic delivery assumptions for such a large scale Green Belt allocation, which whilst mostly in a single land ownership that could facilitate delivery, still requires for the boundaries of the Green Belt to be amended on adoption of the Plan (assuming it is found lawful and sound), detailed masterplanning, essential infrastructure programming on-site and off-site to ensure sustainable development can be achieved. It is not clear from any published evidence how such a delivery rate has been formulated having acknowledged these issues and therefore this is challenged in terms that it is not justified.
Summary: As a result in the change to the NPPF, the Plan also now has very little flexibility within its land supply should anything happen to cause delivery of homes to become delayed during the plan period; which was a fundamental principle to the Plan's strategy approved in November 2018. There is an unjustified over-reliance on DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor to
contribute towards supply at an accelerated rate. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Modification: 1) The Local Plan must be adjusted to incorporate previously discounted development sites, particularly in the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor to restore the flexibility in site supply across a broader range of spatial locations, thereby improving the Plan's effectiveness and deliverability. 2) The methodology to the Local Plan's Housing Trajectory needs to be published and open for comment and challenge of its assumptions.
Consultation Point: PC02 and PC03
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 80 of the NPPF establishes that planning policies should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. The Council notes the new employment land requirements and job growth needs evidence undertaken by Lichfields in 2018. It is considered the amount of new employment land being provided is broadly sufficient to ensure that the Brentwood Borough meets its overall forecast employment land needs, including forecast new needs and losses from allocations and structural change.
It is considered however that the policy makes the assumption that there are no capacity issues for existing infrastructure, or any needs for supporting infrastructure to be provided and it is considered that this lack of clarity will make the policy ineffective, unjustified and will counteract creating conditions to support business growth which the NPPF seeks. As the Local Plan does with its housing target in Policy SP02 and Appendix 1, PC02 and PC03 should therefore incorporate additional provisions to manage the release and expansion of the locations within the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, supported by an Employment Land Trajectory in a new Appendix, to make it more effective, justified and consistent with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC02 and PC03.
Modifications: PC02 and PC03 should be amended to incorporate a staggered delivery target for new employment land, supported by a new Employment Land Trajectory within the Plan's Appendices, to coordinate the phased release of new and expanded employment land to ensure it can be linked to specific and necessary upgrades to supporting infrastructure. This will minimise the impact growth will have on existing highway routes in particular, which could otherwise impact on cross-boundary issues within the wider South Essex economic corridor.
Specialist Accommodation
Consultation Point: HP07
Soundness - Effectiveness
The Council has noted that the Brentwood Gypsy and Traveller Local Needs Accommodation Assessment 2018 (GTAA) assessed the need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Brentwood Borough for the period 2016 to 2033 as being 13 pitches. It acknowledges that there were no Travelling Showpeople identified as living in the Brentwood Borough, so there are no current or future accommodation needs for this community.
The evidence is noted as identifying a requirement of 11 additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches (5 total current need and 6 total future need) to be developed between the period 2016 to 2033 and makes a further 10% allowance for Gypsy and Traveller households whose travelling status was recorded as being "unknown", increasing the need to 12 pitches. It is acknowledged that since the completion of the evidence, one Gypsy and Traveller pitch has been lost through an approved change of use application and to replace this lost pitch, the Plan has added an additional pitch to its target, meaning the total requirement of Gypsy and Traveller pitches is 13 pitches.
Whilst it is noted that Brentwood Council proposes to meet this need through the incorporation of
a minimum 5 Gypsy and Traveller pitches as part of the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation and through the regularisation of 8 existing pitches elsewhere in the Brentwood Borough. This however implies that 8 pitches will contribute towards meeting current need and only 5 pitches towards future need, when 6 are in fact required. The Council therefore objects to Policy HP07.
Modification: The GTAA identified the need for an additional pitch to meet future needs and therefore whilst the Policy HP07 quotes a minimum of 5 new pitches to be provided within its minimum target, the Plan could be more effective by setting 6 pitches as the target.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Positively Prepared & Effectiveness.
The Council is concerned that there is no acknowledgement in the supporting text to the Brentwood Local Plan as to how it will address any unmet needs arising from Greater Essex authorities for the provision of accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople should it arise. The Plan should therefore recognise and support the principle of this approach going forward, to ensure that there will be a technical approach in place to support any neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need. This will ensure that the same process is applied throughout Essex therefore making the plan more positively prepared and effective for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Essex Planning Officers' Association Protocol for Unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Needs 2018 has been developed collaboratively across Essex under the Duty to Cooperate, including with Brentwood Borough Council. It should be referenced in the supporting text to Policy HP07 - within Paragraphs 6.52-6.62. This will help ensure that the Plan recognises and supports the principle of this approach going forward, underling the technical approach in place to support how any requests from neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling will be considered in the future and then addressed as necessary through the Plan review process.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Effectiveness and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 9 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) establishes that "...local planning authorities should set pitch targets...which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in their area, working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities." There is also no mention however in the Brentwood Local Plan of the strategic and cross-boundary matter of Transit Sites, for which there is a study underway during 2019/2020 by the Essex Planning Officers' Association on behalf of all Greater Essex local planning authorities, including Brentwood Borough. Whilst it has not yet been possible to robustly assess the need for transit sites in Essex due to data inconsistencies across Greater Essex, changes have been made to the unauthorised encampment data collection process and an update to Essex Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Local Needs Accommodation Assessment will follow during 2019/2020 to determine whether any transit sites are needed in Greater Essex to help manage development pressures.
Whilst this cannot be included within Policy HE07 due to uncertainty, given that it is a current strategic matter for the Duty to Cooperate, with work in train to seek a resolution, it is considered more effective, for the Plan as a whole, to indicate how any such needs identified in future updates to the GTAA will be dealt with to make it more effective and consistent with the PPTS. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Council considers the Local Plan would be more effective and more consistent with the PPTS if the strategic, cross-boundary issue of transit sites, covered by the Duty to
Cooperate were to be supported by a new paragraph explaining the context behind the issue and that it will be addressed as part of its first review.
Consultation Point: PC08 and Figure 7.7
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes that Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners prepared a Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (RCLS14) for Brentwood Council in 2014. The study identifies that Brentwood Town Centre as the main shopping centre in Brentwood Borough, with Shenfield, Ingatestone and Warley Hill providing smaller scale District Centres offering more local services, whilst smaller communities are supported by a number of village shops/local parades. The relationship between Brentwood Town Centre and larger competing centres including Basildon Town Centre is also noted, which is consistent with the Council's own evidence set out in the South Essex Retail Study 2017.
It is also acknowledged however that the Local Plan's settlement hierarchy proposes that DHGV Village and West Horndon will incorporate District Centres, similar in scale and role to Shenfield and Ingatestone. Figure 7.7 suggests this will apply to just DHGV, but caveats that this may change as a result of masterplanning or new evidence. Whilst the Council accepts that some form of local centre provision that could provide local shopping, community facilities and healthcare facilities would be a sustainable approach to the planning of any new community, helping to reduce the need to travel to larger centres to meet community needs, the positioning of the Garden Village needs to consider how it could impact on other centres and facilities in the locality, including those outside the Brentwood Borough, which may be closer and higher-order than other Brentwood Borough alternatives.
The Council cannot determine from any of Brentwood's published evidence as to what assessments have been carried out to determine the likely impact of installing new District Centres in West Hordon or DHGV on Basildon Borough's Laindon Town Centre. Assuming a central location within the site, DHGV District Centre would be around 2km to its west and West Hordon is only one stop by rail. Laindon Town Centre is the Basildon Borough's smallest town centre, which is currently undergoing a multi-million pound regeneration by Swan Housing Association to redevelop it into a new mixed use commercial and residential development called Laindon Place. It already provides a health centre, community centre, police station and library, which are all set to remain.
It is not considered acceptable as set out in footnote 10 to Figure 7.7 that the "the designation of the DHGV service centre(s) as a District Shopping Centre and/or Local Centre(s) and any subsequent Primary Shopping Area could be altered further by the South Brentwood Masterplan as this should remain a function of policy and not be delegated. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC08 and Figure 7.7.
Modification: Footnote 10 of Figure 7.7 should be amended to remove reference to the South Brentwood Masterplan as the role and order of the designated centre should be established by policy only. The Plan should have been informed by evidence which has tested cross-boundary impacts of installing new District Centres in close proximity to nearby centres including Laindon Town Centre and what measures will be taken in policy to limit any impact. If this evidence does not exist, the District Centre should be removed from DHGV, retaining some local centre provision to ensure DHGV can be sustainable and to enable the Plan to be effective and justified.
Consultation Point: Chapter 3, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 and Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The Local Plan's Spatial Strategy is termed "Transit-orientated Growth", concentrating growth in the Local Plan in two transit corridors running through the borough. The 'Central Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the
A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street Station, and the Elizabeth Line; and the 'Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
The Local Plan states that the site selection process for the housing allocations has been based upon the Spatial Strategy, and a sequential approach to selecting sites for development. It is accepted that this approach is intended to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within compatible locations.
The Council acknowledges that Brentwood Borough Council has now published much of its previously missing evidence as set out in previous Regulation 18 representations. The Council is not satisfied that the Plan has been adequately informed by its evidence, and it questions whether the Spatial Strategy reached is therefore justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted the two Growth Corridors. It has reflected however that there are fundamental distinctions between them, which do not appear to have influenced site selection choices in a justified way. The Central Brentwood Growth Corridor is the location of nationally and regionally managed and maintained infrastructure - the A12 & M25 (Highways England) and Elizabeth Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Transport for London) and East Anglia Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Abellio East Anglia), which helps to put this investment into use through the growth locations. The South Brentwood Growth Corridor, whilst at its far west includes the M25, the remainder of the corridor consists the A127 (maintained by Essex County Council) and Essex Thameside Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by c2c). It is not considered they offer comparable choices in terms of the capacity of these transport connections and the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, by the presence of nationally and regionally maintained infrastructure.
In reviewing the appropriateness of the Spatial Strategy, an important element of the Plan's Sustainability Appraisal involves appraising 'reasonable alternatives' to inform development of the Plan. Four reasonable site alternatives in the Central Brentwood Corridor have been disregarded (AECOM Sustainability Apprial - Table 5.2), despite having few constraints and being able to tap into the potential for movement capacity offered by this superior corridor. This is considered to be in conflict with sustainable development when sites which have significant constraints to development or delivery have been included within the Plan, at the expense of sites which have fewer constraints. This raises fundamental concerns about the Plan's spatial distribution of growth and whether it has made the most of the capacity in this alternative corridor, before embarking on a new standalone settlement at DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor. The Council has noted that four sites on Table 5.2 of the Sustainability Appraisal have the potential to deliver 2,200 homes through extensions to villages, thereby questioning the need for a new settlement of the scale envisaged to deal with growth in the plan-period, which it considers means the Spatial Strategy is unjustified. The Council therefore objects to Chapter 3, the Sustainability Appraisal and land use allocations in Chapter 6 and 7.
Modification: Using the Sustainability Appraisal and other evidence, the Plan should select sites within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor that provide opportunity for extensions to towns and villages that can encourage more sustainable travel choices and take advantage of the superior infrastructure available. This should help encourage commuting behaviour to shift away from private car use and therefore make this location a more sustainable and viable option to concentrate growth. Chapter 3 should be modified as a result along with all land use allocations in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
Consultation Point: Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. The Council challenges whether the Sustainability Appraisal has informed the choices made in the Spatial Strategy as
required by national policy, given it states that there was an early intention by Brentwood Council to deliver at least one new large-scale strategic site, which could be judged as artificially limiting the exploration of other plausible and deliverable urban/ village extensions. It is considered that Brentwood Council's lack of a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) between 2011 and 2018 has negatively impacted upon previous Regulation 18 drafts, which could have evolved differently having been informed by such evidence, demonstrating that other suitable, available and deliverable site options were present. This is unjustified, not consistent with the Plan's Strategic Objective SO1 and not in accordance with the NPPF. The Council therefore objects to the Sustainability Appraisal.
Modification: The Sustainability Appraisal should be reviewed to test an alternative strategy which does not include the artificial assumption that at least one new large scale strategic site should be incorporated into the Local Plan and then it should be amended accordingly. The Plan should then be reviewed informed by the outcome.
Consultation Point: BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) accompanying the Local Plan. It is acknowledged that this is intended to be a 'live' working document, much the same as the Basildon Borough IDP.
Paragraph 5.105 acknowledges that in respects of the South Brentwood Growth Corridor "...the provision of sustainable transport in this area is poor". The Council considers that it is surprising therefore that there are no specific highway mitigation measures provided in the Plan, just a statement that "the Council will work proactively with developers, key stakeholder and service providers to implement...new measures which would seek to mitigate transport impacts of sites on the highway infrastructure...". Whilst it is acknowledged within the Plan of the joint working being undertaken by ASELA, and the A127 Task Force for the Route Management Strategies and Joint Strategic Plan, both of which are supported by Basildon Council. The Council does however consider that highway modelling should have been tested to determine impact in development locations in Brentwood Borough, so it can be clear in policy terms how negative impacts are being mitigated and therefore prove that the Plan's spatial choices are reasonable in sustainability terms. It is questionable whether it can be adequately demonstrated by the Brentwood Local Plan that the allocations chosen, represent the most sustainable option without identifying and testing the viability of specific highway mitigation measures that will be necessary to make them deliverable and sustainable. Without this work, Brentwood Borough could find its ability to unlock the capacity to deliver new communities and homes, particularly at an accelerated pace as suggested in Appendix 1, becomes hindered by a lack of infrastructure capacity and outline solutions to overcome them. It is not considered that Policy BE11 is therefore effective at delivering the Plan's Strategic Objectives.
It is noted that Paragraph 5.106-5.107 acknowledges the Lower Thames Crossing and the outline concept of its preferred route and that it is not expected to have a direct impact on Brentwood Borough in terms of land safeguarding. It is however suggested that the Plan also acknowledges that following the engagement of authorities in Essex, including Basildon Borough Council, Highways England has accepted that its impact modelling was deficient in determining how driver behaviour in South Essex and further afield could alter when the scheme opens. This is particularly an issue for this Plan, as its includes land allocations in West Horndon and the DHGV along the A127 corridor, which will be within a reasonable proximity to the Lower Thames Crossing and could therefore be impacted by it. It should be recognised that Highways England are now taking steps to incorporate growth proposals set out in Local Plans in the vicinity to address this point and identify any measures needed to the scheme or nearby routes to mitigate any adverse impacts. The Council therefore objects to Policy BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106.
Modification: 1) BE11 and the land allocations should have been informed by highway modelling that tests highway mitigation solutions to mitigate impact caused by development. This work should be repeated and the Plan amended in light of its findings.
2) Paragraph 5.106 should be amended to include reference that local authorities have secured additional testing within the Lower Thames Crossing modelling being undertaken by Highways England to determine the extent of local impacts on the road network arising from Local Plan growth.
Consultation Point: R01 & HP01
Soundness - Justified
The DHGV is within close proximity of the administrative boundaries with Basildon & Thurrock Boroughs and it is considered that there may be implications for the future geographical extent of both the Brentwood and South Essex Housing Market Areas as the housing markets evolve.
Furthermore, the policy requirements of the Plan are informed by data collected from Brentwood Borough, or its population; the significant majority of which is located away from this area to the north. Consequently, there is a difference in what might be delivered in DHGV compared to what could be delivered just slightly to the east in Basildon Borough; which might distort the housing markets as they adjust to the new development taking place around the boundary. The following table has been prepared using Figure 6.1 from the Plan and the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment that has informed the Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034 and it is considered both these SHMA's should instead be used to inform the housing mix policy for DHGV. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01 and HP01.
Modification: It is considered the stark contrast between the house size requirements for Basildon and Brentwood in DHGV, which is on a boundary location, means it needs to have taken into account the South Essex SHMA in determining the housing mix for DHGV so that it can better sit within the landscape of the strategic context of South Essex, which is not reflective of the wider Brentwood Borough HMA. Policy HP01 and R01 should be amended in light of this.
Consultation Point: R01(D)(h)
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted that Policy R01(D)(h) has set a target to retain 50% of the strategic allocation for green and blue infrastructure. Given the location is over 259ha, it is agreed that this helps enshrine the Garden Community values within the policies which will guide the masterplan and the site's development. However, the Council questions whether this is intended to be a permanent resource, given it also determines that a further 2,300 homes could be brought forward in the strategic location after 2033; taking its indicative total to around 4,000 homes. It is considered that if it is not explained clearly in any published evidence, as to whether any of the retained space for green and blue infrastructure would need to be used to meet this higher development scale after 2033. The Council's understanding of this, is frustrated by a lack of published evidence on DHGV, which would enable Basildon Borough to effectively understand the nature, extent and potential implications (positive or negative) of its proposals for DHGV. This would make the policy more justified and compliant with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(D)(h).
Modification: Clarify within R01 and its supporting text whether the Green Infrastructure proposed to amount to 50% of the land area is a permanent resource or whether the projected growth in the area beyond the plan-period would need to utilise any of the green infrastructure for growth. If the latter, the percentage should be adjusted accordingly.
Consultation Point: SP02, R01 and Paragraph 8.83-8.84
Soundness - Justified
The Council welcomes the publication of the Brentwood Borough Green Belt Study 2018. It is acknowledged that this comprises two parts; Part 1 is a full Green Belt assessment parcelling up the Green Belt and Part 2 as a separate site assessment of individual sites promoted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). This is a similar format to the Basildon Borough Green Belt Study.
For Part 1, a scale of high - low was used to assess the contribution 70 separate parcels made to the Green Belt. The DHGV parcel (17) score "Moderate - High". It was one of 21 parcels to score "Moderate - High". 19 parcels scored "High". The remainder scored lower.
In respect of the tests, Parcel 17 was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Important
countryside gap between settlements (amber)
Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with a historic town. (green)
The Council does not consider it to be clear however, from the published methodology, as to why having scored highly in relation to the Purpose 1 and Purpose 3, as to why this parcel is assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when there are other parcels which make high contributions towards two of the purposes have been assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes; and are therefore valued to a greater degree as serving towards the purpose of Green Belt.
In respects of Part 2 assessment, the DHGV allocation (Site 200) was assessed alongside other HELAA sites. A total of 92 sites were assessed. The DHGV site assessment matches the entire Parcel 17 assessed in Part 1. Five sites were assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes. A further 18 sites were assessed as making a "moderate to high contribution". Site 200 - 'Entire land east of A128, south of A127' was assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution. The remaining 69 sites were assessed as making a less significant contribution to Green Belt purposes.
The DHGV site was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Would result in significant separation reduction (amber)
* Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
* Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with historic town (green)
The outcomes of Part 2 are considered to be consistent with Part 1. However, it is not clear from the methodology as to why given the site scored highly in relation to Purpose 1 and Purpose 3,
this parcel is then assessed as only making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when it could potentially have been assessed as making a "high" contribution for those reasons.
The Council recognise that there is now, no longer an issue with missing evidence in this regard, which it had repeatedly raised in previous Regulation 18 consultation responses. However, the Council considers that the issue now is one of how the Green Belt evidence has informed the Plan. It is not clear how the policy judgements arrived at have considered that development in this strategic gap, which helps prevent settlement coalescence can be adequately mitigated. The Council does not believe that when accounting for this evidence that the Plan has reached a justified position in respects of whether the Green Belt evidence has informed the Local Plan policies, to the degree which the proposals in the DHGV area are set out. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, R01 and Paragraphs 8.83-8.84.
Modification: The Plan should demonstrate in more detail, through a tool such as a Topic Paper, how its site selection choices have been informed by the Green Belt Study 2018 and should any inconsistencies occurs the Plan's land use allocations and justification should be changed.
Consultation Point: Paragraph 9.36 and R01(II)
Soundness - Justified & Effective
Brentwood Council will be aware from joint Duty to Cooperate meetings with elected members and officers that during 2017, efforts were made by both Basildon and Brentwood Councils to determine whether a West Basildon urban extension could be delivered in the Basildon Borough Local Plan, alongside DHGV, whilst maintaining a sense of visual separation between both developments. To this end, a joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options Study was commissioned by both Councils, which I have enclosed as evidence against this representation, to consider how both Council's Green Belt and land management policies, either side of the boundary, could be coordinated in this location going forward. This was to also help determine whether it was possible for DHGV to co-exist with development in West Basildon without causing harm to heritage and environmental assets within Basildon Borough.
The Council has noted that the Plan does now includes specific references that the joint borough boundary needs a degree of landscape and Green Belt treatment to maintain a visual separation with the edge of Basildon Borough, but it does not elaborate as to how this will be achieved. The Council therefore finds its disappointing that this joint study does not form part of the referenced and published evidence base for the Plan, nor do the outcomes from this work appear to have informed Policy R01(II) as sought through the earlier Duty to Cooperate engagement. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II) and Paragraph 9.36.
Modification: The measures set out in the Joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options 2017 should be acknowledged in Paragraph 9.36 and incorporated into Policy 9.36 to make it more justified and effective at mitigating the impact the development would otherwise have on the Basildon Borough. This would lead to an effective policy outcome identified as being necessary during Duty to Cooperate engagement to manage this cross-boundary issue. It is considered that as a matter of principle, this would help address the Council's previous Regulation 18 objections as to how the boundary would be treated and how the new community could exist side by side the existing smaller settlement of Dunton Wayletts in the Basildon Borough.
Consultation Point: SP04 and R01(I)
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is noted that the Plan assumes that all commuters will use West Horndon railway station and other areas in Brentwood Borough to access a means of travelling to other places. It fails however to investigate the possible impacts on Basildon Borough's road and rail infrastructure, as a
neighbouring authority, arising from commuters or other road users choosing to access facilities within the Basildon Borough instead.
The Transport Assessment (PBA, 2018) discusses measures to ensure more effective bus access to and from West Horndon Station - serving an area including the new DHGV, as well as other employment sites within South Brentwood Growth Corridor. It is noted however that the need for new connections into Basildon Borough in terms of walking, cycling, public transport or road do not appear to be mentioned as being necessary to make it sustainable.
The Brentwood Borough IDP states that a new multi-modal interchange will be created at West Horndon Station. This will serve the DHGV, Childerditch, West Horndon and Enterprise Development sites. It also mentions the possibility that this could serve any future northern Thurrock developments. The Plan states that, the proposed DHGV settlement's transport mitigation measures will include potential dedicated bus route(s) connecting the development with West Horndon station and improvements at West Horndon station for vehicular, segregated cycle and public transport access from surrounding developments, as well as cycle storage and a bus interchange facility. The Council is therefore confused that in seeking to mitigate DHGV's impacts on the surrounding areas there is no mention of any impact being evaluated as spilling over into Basildon Borough and needing its own mitigation.
Laindon railway station, with three platforms and starter trains has greater commutable capacity than West Horndon and could become an alternative choice for residents within DHGV, despite a lack of new connections hampering their ability to make that choice easily without driving, via the A127. Whilst the Plan seeks to make provision for a new interchange at West Horndon to capture these movements more locally, should commuters still seek to use alternative stations including those outside of the Brentwood Borough such as Laindon, this will lead to increase demands on those stations' facilities, particularly parking, as well as the routes to get to them. Policy SP04 does set out the approach required by Paragraph 34 of the NPPF, but it does not explicitly mention that it has accounted for the spatial context of DHGV and the existing spatial form of the Brentwood Borough, where its higher-order settlements are further to the north. It does not state that it will support the possibility of developer contributions being used to mitigate this impact outside the Brentwood Borough in higher-order settlements which are closer that Brentwood Borough's own settlements, but outside the Brentwood Borough. This is considered to disregard how new residents living in the DHGV could behave in the future in seeking to access services and how this impact will therefore be adequately mitigated.
It seems that it an effort for the new DHGV to be self-sustaining, as set out in Paragraph 9.14, it has meant the Plan remains unclear, as to how it will relate to its neighbouring areas, particularly in terms of access and connectivity. This is considered a core sustainability principle for new developments and whether in exercising that choice, its residents will use what is to be provided within Brentwood Borough remains to be seen. They could use alternative routes (namely the A127 and West Mayne into Laindon) to access different facilities already available in closer higher order settlements outside Brentwood Borough. Considering that there are existing services that are already shared between the Borough's residents, e.g. schools, it is considered essential for a more practical and pragmatic approach to be adopted should the DHGV be permitted, including the policy reality that until such a time as the critical mass for new homes is established on-site, it is more likely that Basildon Borough's facilities in Laindon will be picking up the demands of new users arising from the neighbouring Brentwood Borough in the short-medium term.
There is no evidence presented by Brentwood Borough Council which indicates that DHGV's growth demands have been evaluated, in combination, with the projected demands arising from the Basildon Borough Local Plan. The Plan should not assume that such growth can just be absorbed by the nearby infrastructure and services in Basildon Borough and investment through developer contributions will be necessary. The infrastructure in the Basildon Borough has been evaluated for its capacity, its ability to grow and the scale of investment necessary to accommodate the growth in the Basildon Borough Local Plan to enable the Basildon growth to occur and there has not been enough information published during Regulation 18 (as set out in previous
representations) to be able to incorporate any testing of Brentwood's growth in as well. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP04 and R01(II).
Modification: The Plan should be modified to recognise that some impacts are likely to be cross-boundary and additional provisions should be incorporated into SP04 and RO1(I) that will support using S106/CIL arising from development in Brentwood Borough to be used for investment outside the Brentwood Borough, where it can be proven that there is reasonable likelihood of a direct or residual impacts otherwise being caused that need to be mitigated. This will make the Plan more effective, justified and in accordance with national policy.
Consultation Point: R01(I) and Appendix 1
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes the housing trajectory included within the Plan at Appendix 1. With regards to DHGV it is assumed that delivery will commence in 2022/23 (within the next five years) at a rate of 100 homes per annum, climbing to 300 homes per annum by 2026/27. As set out in earlier representations in respects of housing supply, this seems overly optimistic given that the allocation is currently within the extent of the Green Belt, requires masterplanning and will need to go through a planning application and elements of the condition discharge process before development on site can even commence. Development commencement on-site meanwhile, will be reliant on essential utility and infrastructure provision. No evidence is provided alongside the Plan, or within the associated Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), as to how the housing trajectory in general has been developed. Furthermore, there is no specific evidence published setting out the evidence base, or any form of a development framework/ masterplan for the DHGV that explains how the proposed accelerated rate of delivery will be possible to achieve.
The Council considers that the speed and level of growth in this boundary location may have implications for Basildon Borough's own housing market and risks the ability for it to be able to deliver housing at the rates necessary for its own housing trajectory. Early residents of the DHGV will rely on some services and facilities outside the village to meet their initial needs, unless these facilities were all to be front-loaded and wait for the population to gradually build up to make full use of them. As an example, the DHGV will require new primary and secondary school provision. However, whilst the Brentwood IDP shows the primary provision in particular being delivered early, it is understood to not be economically viable to operate a school with low pupil numbers, and it may be the case that the village grows for a number of years with these pupils travelling to other schools in the locality (principally within the Basildon Borough), whilst operational primary and then secondary education provision is secured and the village becomes more self-sufficient. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(I) and Appendix 1.
Modification: The Council therefore seeks for evidence to be provided demonstrating the realistic delivery trajectory for DHGV so that the potential short-medium term pressures on services and facilities in nearby settlements can be assessed, understood and planned for by service providers and neighbouring authorities. This will help ensure adequate mitigation provisions can be put in place to reduce any potential negative impacts on Basildon Borough residents living nearby. This will make the Plan justified and effective.
Consultation Point: R01(II)
Soundness - Effectiveness
Notwithstanding that the Council objects to many of the fundamental soundness principles of the DHGV, the Council would like to seek assurances written into Policy R01(II) that it will be invited by Brentwood Borough Council to become more involved in the detailed design and delivery of the new village. This will ensure that the strategic and cross-boundary impacts covered by the Duty to Cooperate and raised during the Council's response to the Plan at Regulation 18 and 19 stages are managed effectively during the development's implementation stages (assuming it is
considered sound), alongside the Basildon Borough Local Plan's own implementation. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II).
Modification: The Council would like a criterion added into Policy R01(II) under a new heading "Collaborative Approach" that will make it a requirement for neighbouring authorities to be engaged during the detailed design stages of DHGV to ensure strategic and cross boundary impacts are managed effectively during implementation.
This concludes the Council's representation.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23172

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Basildon Borough Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Basildon Council would like to seek assurances written into Policy R01(II) that it will be invited by Brentwood Council to become more involved in the detailed design and delivery of the new village. This will ensure that the strategic and cross-boundary impacts covered by the Duty to Cooperate and raised during the Council's response to the Plan at Regulation 18 and 19 stages are managed effectively during the development's implementation stages (assuming it is considered sound), alongside the Basildon Borough Local Plan's own implementation.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Council would like a criterion added into Policy R01(II) under a new heading "Collaborative Approach" that will make it a requirement for neighbouring authorities to be engaged during the detailed design stages of DHGV to ensure strategic and cross boundary impacts are managed effectively during implementation.

Full text:

This letter serves as the approved response from Basildon Borough Council to the Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan Regulation 19 public consultation.
Please be advised that for all of the consultation points below, the Council would like to attend the future oral hearings as part of the Plan's Examination in Public.
As a neighbouring authority, a Duty to Cooperate public body and a key partner in the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA), Basildon Borough Council has taken the opportunity to review and consider the potential implications for the Basildon Borough that may arise from Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan and determine whether it considers it to be compliant with necessary legislation and whether it meets the tests of soundness.
1) Is the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 legally compliant?
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 and supporting documents. It considers that whilst it disagrees with aspects of the Plan from a soundness perspective that it is however legally compliant.
2) Does the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meet the tests of soundness?
The Council does not believe that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meets the tests of soundness in all of its policy areas. It therefore makes the following 1 representation in support of an aspect of the Plan and 17 representations where it considers the Local Plan is unsound and requires modifications to make it sound.
Supporting Representations
Consultation Point: Chapter 1
Soundness - Effectiveness & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, it considers that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere. To demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, strategic policy-making authorities should
planning.policy@brentwood.gov.uk
SERVED BY EMAIL ONLY
prepare and maintain one or more Statements of Common Ground, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these.
A major step forward for effective cooperation has been the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Essex County, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Councils to form the ASELA. This has ensured that there is now a more coordinated, collective working on a 'place vision' for the sub region, which recognises one of the key delivery tools will be a statutory Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). A Statement of Common Ground has also been agreed between the ASELA to ensure it is embedded into the Local Development Schemes of all the local planning authorities with resources committed to its preparation during 2019/2021. This will ensure it sets the foundations for planning at a broader spatial level, determining how growth and infrastructure can be better coordinated to positively influence place-making in South Essex and provide a more prosperous area for people to live, work, study and visit. The Statement of Common Ground recognises that the planning landscape of South Essex is not perfect and not all authorities can wait for the JSP to be completed before their Local Plans are advanced. It accepts that the JSP will have to be mindful, in particular of Basildon, Brentwood and Castle Point's and the reality that their Local Plans are already too advanced to be paused.
The Council has noted Brentwood Council's commitment in paragraph 1.13 to work as a member of ASELA on a process to develop a long-term growth ambition that would underpin strategic spatial, infrastructure and economic priorities across the wider sub-region. It is acknowledged that this is in accordance with the South Essex JSP Statement of Common Ground - June 2018; of which Basildon and Brentwood Borough Councils are one of the seven joint signatories.
Work on the JSP is at an early stage with Regulation 18 consultation due to take place during 2019, followed by Regulation 19 in 2020, with examination in public and adoption not expected to be until 2020/2021. It will cover a longer plan period extending to 2038; slightly longer than both the Basildon and Brentwood Local Plans. Paragraph 1.38 of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan references that its own allocations can contribute towards some of the delivery of early growth during the JSP plan-period; a position that is also applicable for the soon to be submitted Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034. It is welcomed that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan has mirrored the intent of the Basildon Borough Local Plan in Paragraphs 1.35-1.38 that following the adoption of the JSP, it may be necessary to review the Plan, at least in part, to ensure any opportunities for additional growth and infrastructure provision in the Borough, that may otherwise be additionally identified in the JSP, can be realised. The Council fundamentally supports this policy approach as meeting the soundness tests of being a) effective and b) in accordance with national policy.
The Council considers this to be compatible to its own position and underpins the collective efforts to get an "effective mechanism" in place to address strategic, cross boundary matters in a more holistic and planned manner that has greater potential to realise positive outcomes to South Essex communities. Looking ahead, the Council embraces the opportunity presented by Brentwood Borough Council being part of the ASELA and the JSP, in order to tackle strategic, cross-boundary matters holistically to ensure sustainable growth solutions are achieved that benefit all communities.
Objecting Representations
Consultation Point: Whole Plan
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. The Council, as a neighbouring Borough and Duty to Cooperate body, has reviewed and considered previous versions of the Local Plan and its preparatory documents and submitted relevant representations under Regulation 18 consultations. The Council formally wishes to express its disappointment that given fundamental
evidence has been 'in development', but not published during much of its preparation. It has been significantly difficult, therefore, to digest the Plan's rationale and approach as it has evolved. This includes the entire Green Belt Review, Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study, Local Plan Viability Assessment and Transport Assessment which were not published until the month before Brentwood Council considered the Publication Local Plan in November 2018. It is accepted that not all evidence can be completed by each consultation stage and much may remain as a continual draft until Regulation 19, however it is considered this has created a lack of transparency during critical plan-making stages and contributed to the scale of representations from Basildon Council for its Regulation 19 response.
During 2017/2018, officers from Basildon, Thurrock and Essex County Councils, facilitated by an officer from Rochford District Council, jointly sought to understand and address with Brentwood Borough Council how the Brentwood Borough Local Plan, in particular the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) strategic allocation, could impact on neighbouring authority areas, particularly in terms of infrastructure and service provision. Meetings were held, and correspondence exchanged, in an effort to seek solutions and resolutions to previous Regulation 18 objections/ observations from all three Councils. The intention was to appreciate the evidenced rationale for identifying the DHGV strategic allocation and ensuring neighbouring authorities could engage more effectively to identify and manage cross-boundary impacts. Despite this engagement, it is considered that not all information and assurances sought from Brentwood Borough Council have been provided and this brings into question the soundness of the rationale and choices made in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan.
.
As such, all of Basildon Council's previous responses to Regulation 18 consultations are enclosed as supplementary evidence to the Regulation 19 consultation; affirming that many of the comments made in respects this consultation response have been raised previously, but remain unanswered or inadequately addressed. It is uncertain how the Plan has been informed by this previous input. It is considered that this is not a justified approach and has resulted in a Plan which is less effective at tackling strategic, cross-boundary issues.
Consultation Point: SP02: Managing Growth, Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is acknowledged that Brentwood Borough Council commissioned David Couttie Associates (DCA) in 2013 to undertake a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and define its Housing Market Area (HMA). This concluded that Brentwood Borough's administrative area was a self-contained HMA. This is different to the Basildon Borough, which is a sub-area (with Castle Point) of the much larger South Essex HMA, which also incorporates Rochford, Southend on Sea and Thurrock. The Brentwood SHMA, which was most recently updated in November 2018, forms part of the evidence base for identifying the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing in Brentwood Borough. However, NPPF/2019 (published after the Publication Local Plan was approved by Brentwood Borough Council in November 2018, in February 2019) now requires housing needs to be calculated in accordance with the Standard Methodology set out in national Planning Practice Guidance.
Basildon Borough Council has acknowledged that this has seen the OAN for Brentwood Borough change three times over the course of the last year as follows:
* In January 2018, the Brentwood SHMA January 2018 identified an OAN for Brentwood of 380. This was calculated using the SHMA Planning Practice Guidance that underpinned the NPPF/2012;
* In July 2018, NPPF/2018 was launched introducing the standard methodology for calculating objectively assessed housing need. The standard methodology requires the use of the most recently published household projections as the starting point. At that time, the 2014-based CLG Household Projections formed that starting point resulting in an OAN for Brentwood of 452 homes per annum; and
* In September 2018, 2016-based ONS Household Projections were published, revising the starting point for the standard method calculation. For Brentwood Borough, these projections showed a reduced rate of household growth going forward, resulting in a reduced housing requirement for Brentwood of 350 homes per annum.
It has been noted by Basildon Council that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan uses this latest 2016 projection to define the minimum OAN target.
The reduced rate of household growth in the 2016-based ONS Household Projections was highlighted as a nation-wide issue driving down the OAN calculations in around two-thirds of authorities, although not Basildon. This resulted in the standard methodology only identifying around 215,000 homes per annum supply for England against a national policy target of 300,000 homes per annum. Consequently, in October 2018 MHCLG launched a consultation on technical changes to the standard methodology, seeking for authorities to continue using the 2014-based CLG Household Projections in the interim. On the 19 February 2019, the Government's response to this consultation was published indicating that the Government will be making clear in national Planning Practice Guidance that the 2016-based ONS Household Projections should not be used for the standard methodology calculation, and the 2014-based CLG Household Projections should be used instead.
The Brentwood Local Plan therefore, which makes provision for 456 homes per annum does meet just over its full OAN for housing, having regard to the standard methodology calculation of need based on the 2014 CLG Household Projections (452 homes per annum), as explained in required by Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20190220 and Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 2a-005-20190220) that has been adjusted following the Government's response to the technical consultation.
The Brentwood Local Plan, however, as drafted and approved by Brentwood Council in November 2018, sets out in Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 that the housing target for Brentwood is set at 350 homes per annum and it proposes an annual housing supply buffer of 20% taking total supply of 456 homes per annum. This was considered at the time as offering additional flexibility throughout the plan period. This is now not the case as the 2016-based ONS Household Projections must be discounted, as above, with the baseline reverting to the 2014-based projections. This results in a Plan which will now have an insignificant flexibility in its land supply; a component which was considered justified and fundamental to the Plan's strategy when it was approved in November 2018.
When this new position is viewed alongside the variable housing target, it is considered this could cause the plan to be less effective and justified. The initial housing target of 310 homes per annum between 2016 and 2023, should, according to the Plan, increase to 584 homes per annum beyond 2023. It is noted that this increase is substantially reliant on the new Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, which according to the Housing Trajectory set out in Appendix 1 is expected to commence housing delivery in 2023/24, within the first five years of the Plan. That scheme is expected to deliver at the initial ambitious rate of 100 homes per annum upwards from thereon, reaching 300 homes per annum by 2026. These are considered to be overly optimistic delivery assumptions for such a large scale Green Belt allocation, which whilst mostly in a single land ownership that could facilitate delivery, still requires for the boundaries of the Green Belt to be amended on adoption of the Plan (assuming it is found lawful and sound), detailed masterplanning, essential infrastructure programming on-site and off-site to ensure sustainable development can be achieved. It is not clear from any published evidence how such a delivery rate has been formulated having acknowledged these issues and therefore this is challenged in terms that it is not justified.
Summary: As a result in the change to the NPPF, the Plan also now has very little flexibility within its land supply should anything happen to cause delivery of homes to become delayed during the plan period; which was a fundamental principle to the Plan's strategy approved in November 2018. There is an unjustified over-reliance on DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor to
contribute towards supply at an accelerated rate. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Modification: 1) The Local Plan must be adjusted to incorporate previously discounted development sites, particularly in the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor to restore the flexibility in site supply across a broader range of spatial locations, thereby improving the Plan's effectiveness and deliverability. 2) The methodology to the Local Plan's Housing Trajectory needs to be published and open for comment and challenge of its assumptions.
Consultation Point: PC02 and PC03
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 80 of the NPPF establishes that planning policies should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. The Council notes the new employment land requirements and job growth needs evidence undertaken by Lichfields in 2018. It is considered the amount of new employment land being provided is broadly sufficient to ensure that the Brentwood Borough meets its overall forecast employment land needs, including forecast new needs and losses from allocations and structural change.
It is considered however that the policy makes the assumption that there are no capacity issues for existing infrastructure, or any needs for supporting infrastructure to be provided and it is considered that this lack of clarity will make the policy ineffective, unjustified and will counteract creating conditions to support business growth which the NPPF seeks. As the Local Plan does with its housing target in Policy SP02 and Appendix 1, PC02 and PC03 should therefore incorporate additional provisions to manage the release and expansion of the locations within the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, supported by an Employment Land Trajectory in a new Appendix, to make it more effective, justified and consistent with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC02 and PC03.
Modifications: PC02 and PC03 should be amended to incorporate a staggered delivery target for new employment land, supported by a new Employment Land Trajectory within the Plan's Appendices, to coordinate the phased release of new and expanded employment land to ensure it can be linked to specific and necessary upgrades to supporting infrastructure. This will minimise the impact growth will have on existing highway routes in particular, which could otherwise impact on cross-boundary issues within the wider South Essex economic corridor.
Specialist Accommodation
Consultation Point: HP07
Soundness - Effectiveness
The Council has noted that the Brentwood Gypsy and Traveller Local Needs Accommodation Assessment 2018 (GTAA) assessed the need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Brentwood Borough for the period 2016 to 2033 as being 13 pitches. It acknowledges that there were no Travelling Showpeople identified as living in the Brentwood Borough, so there are no current or future accommodation needs for this community.
The evidence is noted as identifying a requirement of 11 additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches (5 total current need and 6 total future need) to be developed between the period 2016 to 2033 and makes a further 10% allowance for Gypsy and Traveller households whose travelling status was recorded as being "unknown", increasing the need to 12 pitches. It is acknowledged that since the completion of the evidence, one Gypsy and Traveller pitch has been lost through an approved change of use application and to replace this lost pitch, the Plan has added an additional pitch to its target, meaning the total requirement of Gypsy and Traveller pitches is 13 pitches.
Whilst it is noted that Brentwood Council proposes to meet this need through the incorporation of
a minimum 5 Gypsy and Traveller pitches as part of the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation and through the regularisation of 8 existing pitches elsewhere in the Brentwood Borough. This however implies that 8 pitches will contribute towards meeting current need and only 5 pitches towards future need, when 6 are in fact required. The Council therefore objects to Policy HP07.
Modification: The GTAA identified the need for an additional pitch to meet future needs and therefore whilst the Policy HP07 quotes a minimum of 5 new pitches to be provided within its minimum target, the Plan could be more effective by setting 6 pitches as the target.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Positively Prepared & Effectiveness.
The Council is concerned that there is no acknowledgement in the supporting text to the Brentwood Local Plan as to how it will address any unmet needs arising from Greater Essex authorities for the provision of accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople should it arise. The Plan should therefore recognise and support the principle of this approach going forward, to ensure that there will be a technical approach in place to support any neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need. This will ensure that the same process is applied throughout Essex therefore making the plan more positively prepared and effective for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Essex Planning Officers' Association Protocol for Unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Needs 2018 has been developed collaboratively across Essex under the Duty to Cooperate, including with Brentwood Borough Council. It should be referenced in the supporting text to Policy HP07 - within Paragraphs 6.52-6.62. This will help ensure that the Plan recognises and supports the principle of this approach going forward, underling the technical approach in place to support how any requests from neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling will be considered in the future and then addressed as necessary through the Plan review process.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Effectiveness and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 9 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) establishes that "...local planning authorities should set pitch targets...which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in their area, working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities." There is also no mention however in the Brentwood Local Plan of the strategic and cross-boundary matter of Transit Sites, for which there is a study underway during 2019/2020 by the Essex Planning Officers' Association on behalf of all Greater Essex local planning authorities, including Brentwood Borough. Whilst it has not yet been possible to robustly assess the need for transit sites in Essex due to data inconsistencies across Greater Essex, changes have been made to the unauthorised encampment data collection process and an update to Essex Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Local Needs Accommodation Assessment will follow during 2019/2020 to determine whether any transit sites are needed in Greater Essex to help manage development pressures.
Whilst this cannot be included within Policy HE07 due to uncertainty, given that it is a current strategic matter for the Duty to Cooperate, with work in train to seek a resolution, it is considered more effective, for the Plan as a whole, to indicate how any such needs identified in future updates to the GTAA will be dealt with to make it more effective and consistent with the PPTS. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Council considers the Local Plan would be more effective and more consistent with the PPTS if the strategic, cross-boundary issue of transit sites, covered by the Duty to
Cooperate were to be supported by a new paragraph explaining the context behind the issue and that it will be addressed as part of its first review.
Consultation Point: PC08 and Figure 7.7
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes that Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners prepared a Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (RCLS14) for Brentwood Council in 2014. The study identifies that Brentwood Town Centre as the main shopping centre in Brentwood Borough, with Shenfield, Ingatestone and Warley Hill providing smaller scale District Centres offering more local services, whilst smaller communities are supported by a number of village shops/local parades. The relationship between Brentwood Town Centre and larger competing centres including Basildon Town Centre is also noted, which is consistent with the Council's own evidence set out in the South Essex Retail Study 2017.
It is also acknowledged however that the Local Plan's settlement hierarchy proposes that DHGV Village and West Horndon will incorporate District Centres, similar in scale and role to Shenfield and Ingatestone. Figure 7.7 suggests this will apply to just DHGV, but caveats that this may change as a result of masterplanning or new evidence. Whilst the Council accepts that some form of local centre provision that could provide local shopping, community facilities and healthcare facilities would be a sustainable approach to the planning of any new community, helping to reduce the need to travel to larger centres to meet community needs, the positioning of the Garden Village needs to consider how it could impact on other centres and facilities in the locality, including those outside the Brentwood Borough, which may be closer and higher-order than other Brentwood Borough alternatives.
The Council cannot determine from any of Brentwood's published evidence as to what assessments have been carried out to determine the likely impact of installing new District Centres in West Hordon or DHGV on Basildon Borough's Laindon Town Centre. Assuming a central location within the site, DHGV District Centre would be around 2km to its west and West Hordon is only one stop by rail. Laindon Town Centre is the Basildon Borough's smallest town centre, which is currently undergoing a multi-million pound regeneration by Swan Housing Association to redevelop it into a new mixed use commercial and residential development called Laindon Place. It already provides a health centre, community centre, police station and library, which are all set to remain.
It is not considered acceptable as set out in footnote 10 to Figure 7.7 that the "the designation of the DHGV service centre(s) as a District Shopping Centre and/or Local Centre(s) and any subsequent Primary Shopping Area could be altered further by the South Brentwood Masterplan as this should remain a function of policy and not be delegated. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC08 and Figure 7.7.
Modification: Footnote 10 of Figure 7.7 should be amended to remove reference to the South Brentwood Masterplan as the role and order of the designated centre should be established by policy only. The Plan should have been informed by evidence which has tested cross-boundary impacts of installing new District Centres in close proximity to nearby centres including Laindon Town Centre and what measures will be taken in policy to limit any impact. If this evidence does not exist, the District Centre should be removed from DHGV, retaining some local centre provision to ensure DHGV can be sustainable and to enable the Plan to be effective and justified.
Consultation Point: Chapter 3, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 and Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The Local Plan's Spatial Strategy is termed "Transit-orientated Growth", concentrating growth in the Local Plan in two transit corridors running through the borough. The 'Central Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the
A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street Station, and the Elizabeth Line; and the 'Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
The Local Plan states that the site selection process for the housing allocations has been based upon the Spatial Strategy, and a sequential approach to selecting sites for development. It is accepted that this approach is intended to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within compatible locations.
The Council acknowledges that Brentwood Borough Council has now published much of its previously missing evidence as set out in previous Regulation 18 representations. The Council is not satisfied that the Plan has been adequately informed by its evidence, and it questions whether the Spatial Strategy reached is therefore justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted the two Growth Corridors. It has reflected however that there are fundamental distinctions between them, which do not appear to have influenced site selection choices in a justified way. The Central Brentwood Growth Corridor is the location of nationally and regionally managed and maintained infrastructure - the A12 & M25 (Highways England) and Elizabeth Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Transport for London) and East Anglia Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Abellio East Anglia), which helps to put this investment into use through the growth locations. The South Brentwood Growth Corridor, whilst at its far west includes the M25, the remainder of the corridor consists the A127 (maintained by Essex County Council) and Essex Thameside Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by c2c). It is not considered they offer comparable choices in terms of the capacity of these transport connections and the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, by the presence of nationally and regionally maintained infrastructure.
In reviewing the appropriateness of the Spatial Strategy, an important element of the Plan's Sustainability Appraisal involves appraising 'reasonable alternatives' to inform development of the Plan. Four reasonable site alternatives in the Central Brentwood Corridor have been disregarded (AECOM Sustainability Apprial - Table 5.2), despite having few constraints and being able to tap into the potential for movement capacity offered by this superior corridor. This is considered to be in conflict with sustainable development when sites which have significant constraints to development or delivery have been included within the Plan, at the expense of sites which have fewer constraints. This raises fundamental concerns about the Plan's spatial distribution of growth and whether it has made the most of the capacity in this alternative corridor, before embarking on a new standalone settlement at DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor. The Council has noted that four sites on Table 5.2 of the Sustainability Appraisal have the potential to deliver 2,200 homes through extensions to villages, thereby questioning the need for a new settlement of the scale envisaged to deal with growth in the plan-period, which it considers means the Spatial Strategy is unjustified. The Council therefore objects to Chapter 3, the Sustainability Appraisal and land use allocations in Chapter 6 and 7.
Modification: Using the Sustainability Appraisal and other evidence, the Plan should select sites within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor that provide opportunity for extensions to towns and villages that can encourage more sustainable travel choices and take advantage of the superior infrastructure available. This should help encourage commuting behaviour to shift away from private car use and therefore make this location a more sustainable and viable option to concentrate growth. Chapter 3 should be modified as a result along with all land use allocations in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
Consultation Point: Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. The Council challenges whether the Sustainability Appraisal has informed the choices made in the Spatial Strategy as
required by national policy, given it states that there was an early intention by Brentwood Council to deliver at least one new large-scale strategic site, which could be judged as artificially limiting the exploration of other plausible and deliverable urban/ village extensions. It is considered that Brentwood Council's lack of a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) between 2011 and 2018 has negatively impacted upon previous Regulation 18 drafts, which could have evolved differently having been informed by such evidence, demonstrating that other suitable, available and deliverable site options were present. This is unjustified, not consistent with the Plan's Strategic Objective SO1 and not in accordance with the NPPF. The Council therefore objects to the Sustainability Appraisal.
Modification: The Sustainability Appraisal should be reviewed to test an alternative strategy which does not include the artificial assumption that at least one new large scale strategic site should be incorporated into the Local Plan and then it should be amended accordingly. The Plan should then be reviewed informed by the outcome.
Consultation Point: BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) accompanying the Local Plan. It is acknowledged that this is intended to be a 'live' working document, much the same as the Basildon Borough IDP.
Paragraph 5.105 acknowledges that in respects of the South Brentwood Growth Corridor "...the provision of sustainable transport in this area is poor". The Council considers that it is surprising therefore that there are no specific highway mitigation measures provided in the Plan, just a statement that "the Council will work proactively with developers, key stakeholder and service providers to implement...new measures which would seek to mitigate transport impacts of sites on the highway infrastructure...". Whilst it is acknowledged within the Plan of the joint working being undertaken by ASELA, and the A127 Task Force for the Route Management Strategies and Joint Strategic Plan, both of which are supported by Basildon Council. The Council does however consider that highway modelling should have been tested to determine impact in development locations in Brentwood Borough, so it can be clear in policy terms how negative impacts are being mitigated and therefore prove that the Plan's spatial choices are reasonable in sustainability terms. It is questionable whether it can be adequately demonstrated by the Brentwood Local Plan that the allocations chosen, represent the most sustainable option without identifying and testing the viability of specific highway mitigation measures that will be necessary to make them deliverable and sustainable. Without this work, Brentwood Borough could find its ability to unlock the capacity to deliver new communities and homes, particularly at an accelerated pace as suggested in Appendix 1, becomes hindered by a lack of infrastructure capacity and outline solutions to overcome them. It is not considered that Policy BE11 is therefore effective at delivering the Plan's Strategic Objectives.
It is noted that Paragraph 5.106-5.107 acknowledges the Lower Thames Crossing and the outline concept of its preferred route and that it is not expected to have a direct impact on Brentwood Borough in terms of land safeguarding. It is however suggested that the Plan also acknowledges that following the engagement of authorities in Essex, including Basildon Borough Council, Highways England has accepted that its impact modelling was deficient in determining how driver behaviour in South Essex and further afield could alter when the scheme opens. This is particularly an issue for this Plan, as its includes land allocations in West Horndon and the DHGV along the A127 corridor, which will be within a reasonable proximity to the Lower Thames Crossing and could therefore be impacted by it. It should be recognised that Highways England are now taking steps to incorporate growth proposals set out in Local Plans in the vicinity to address this point and identify any measures needed to the scheme or nearby routes to mitigate any adverse impacts. The Council therefore objects to Policy BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106.
Modification: 1) BE11 and the land allocations should have been informed by highway modelling that tests highway mitigation solutions to mitigate impact caused by development. This work should be repeated and the Plan amended in light of its findings.
2) Paragraph 5.106 should be amended to include reference that local authorities have secured additional testing within the Lower Thames Crossing modelling being undertaken by Highways England to determine the extent of local impacts on the road network arising from Local Plan growth.
Consultation Point: R01 & HP01
Soundness - Justified
The DHGV is within close proximity of the administrative boundaries with Basildon & Thurrock Boroughs and it is considered that there may be implications for the future geographical extent of both the Brentwood and South Essex Housing Market Areas as the housing markets evolve.
Furthermore, the policy requirements of the Plan are informed by data collected from Brentwood Borough, or its population; the significant majority of which is located away from this area to the north. Consequently, there is a difference in what might be delivered in DHGV compared to what could be delivered just slightly to the east in Basildon Borough; which might distort the housing markets as they adjust to the new development taking place around the boundary. The following table has been prepared using Figure 6.1 from the Plan and the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment that has informed the Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034 and it is considered both these SHMA's should instead be used to inform the housing mix policy for DHGV. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01 and HP01.
Modification: It is considered the stark contrast between the house size requirements for Basildon and Brentwood in DHGV, which is on a boundary location, means it needs to have taken into account the South Essex SHMA in determining the housing mix for DHGV so that it can better sit within the landscape of the strategic context of South Essex, which is not reflective of the wider Brentwood Borough HMA. Policy HP01 and R01 should be amended in light of this.
Consultation Point: R01(D)(h)
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted that Policy R01(D)(h) has set a target to retain 50% of the strategic allocation for green and blue infrastructure. Given the location is over 259ha, it is agreed that this helps enshrine the Garden Community values within the policies which will guide the masterplan and the site's development. However, the Council questions whether this is intended to be a permanent resource, given it also determines that a further 2,300 homes could be brought forward in the strategic location after 2033; taking its indicative total to around 4,000 homes. It is considered that if it is not explained clearly in any published evidence, as to whether any of the retained space for green and blue infrastructure would need to be used to meet this higher development scale after 2033. The Council's understanding of this, is frustrated by a lack of published evidence on DHGV, which would enable Basildon Borough to effectively understand the nature, extent and potential implications (positive or negative) of its proposals for DHGV. This would make the policy more justified and compliant with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(D)(h).
Modification: Clarify within R01 and its supporting text whether the Green Infrastructure proposed to amount to 50% of the land area is a permanent resource or whether the projected growth in the area beyond the plan-period would need to utilise any of the green infrastructure for growth. If the latter, the percentage should be adjusted accordingly.
Consultation Point: SP02, R01 and Paragraph 8.83-8.84
Soundness - Justified
The Council welcomes the publication of the Brentwood Borough Green Belt Study 2018. It is acknowledged that this comprises two parts; Part 1 is a full Green Belt assessment parcelling up the Green Belt and Part 2 as a separate site assessment of individual sites promoted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). This is a similar format to the Basildon Borough Green Belt Study.
For Part 1, a scale of high - low was used to assess the contribution 70 separate parcels made to the Green Belt. The DHGV parcel (17) score "Moderate - High". It was one of 21 parcels to score "Moderate - High". 19 parcels scored "High". The remainder scored lower.
In respect of the tests, Parcel 17 was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Important
countryside gap between settlements (amber)
Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with a historic town. (green)
The Council does not consider it to be clear however, from the published methodology, as to why having scored highly in relation to the Purpose 1 and Purpose 3, as to why this parcel is assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when there are other parcels which make high contributions towards two of the purposes have been assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes; and are therefore valued to a greater degree as serving towards the purpose of Green Belt.
In respects of Part 2 assessment, the DHGV allocation (Site 200) was assessed alongside other HELAA sites. A total of 92 sites were assessed. The DHGV site assessment matches the entire Parcel 17 assessed in Part 1. Five sites were assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes. A further 18 sites were assessed as making a "moderate to high contribution". Site 200 - 'Entire land east of A128, south of A127' was assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution. The remaining 69 sites were assessed as making a less significant contribution to Green Belt purposes.
The DHGV site was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Would result in significant separation reduction (amber)
* Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
* Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with historic town (green)
The outcomes of Part 2 are considered to be consistent with Part 1. However, it is not clear from the methodology as to why given the site scored highly in relation to Purpose 1 and Purpose 3,
this parcel is then assessed as only making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when it could potentially have been assessed as making a "high" contribution for those reasons.
The Council recognise that there is now, no longer an issue with missing evidence in this regard, which it had repeatedly raised in previous Regulation 18 consultation responses. However, the Council considers that the issue now is one of how the Green Belt evidence has informed the Plan. It is not clear how the policy judgements arrived at have considered that development in this strategic gap, which helps prevent settlement coalescence can be adequately mitigated. The Council does not believe that when accounting for this evidence that the Plan has reached a justified position in respects of whether the Green Belt evidence has informed the Local Plan policies, to the degree which the proposals in the DHGV area are set out. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, R01 and Paragraphs 8.83-8.84.
Modification: The Plan should demonstrate in more detail, through a tool such as a Topic Paper, how its site selection choices have been informed by the Green Belt Study 2018 and should any inconsistencies occurs the Plan's land use allocations and justification should be changed.
Consultation Point: Paragraph 9.36 and R01(II)
Soundness - Justified & Effective
Brentwood Council will be aware from joint Duty to Cooperate meetings with elected members and officers that during 2017, efforts were made by both Basildon and Brentwood Councils to determine whether a West Basildon urban extension could be delivered in the Basildon Borough Local Plan, alongside DHGV, whilst maintaining a sense of visual separation between both developments. To this end, a joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options Study was commissioned by both Councils, which I have enclosed as evidence against this representation, to consider how both Council's Green Belt and land management policies, either side of the boundary, could be coordinated in this location going forward. This was to also help determine whether it was possible for DHGV to co-exist with development in West Basildon without causing harm to heritage and environmental assets within Basildon Borough.
The Council has noted that the Plan does now includes specific references that the joint borough boundary needs a degree of landscape and Green Belt treatment to maintain a visual separation with the edge of Basildon Borough, but it does not elaborate as to how this will be achieved. The Council therefore finds its disappointing that this joint study does not form part of the referenced and published evidence base for the Plan, nor do the outcomes from this work appear to have informed Policy R01(II) as sought through the earlier Duty to Cooperate engagement. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II) and Paragraph 9.36.
Modification: The measures set out in the Joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options 2017 should be acknowledged in Paragraph 9.36 and incorporated into Policy 9.36 to make it more justified and effective at mitigating the impact the development would otherwise have on the Basildon Borough. This would lead to an effective policy outcome identified as being necessary during Duty to Cooperate engagement to manage this cross-boundary issue. It is considered that as a matter of principle, this would help address the Council's previous Regulation 18 objections as to how the boundary would be treated and how the new community could exist side by side the existing smaller settlement of Dunton Wayletts in the Basildon Borough.
Consultation Point: SP04 and R01(I)
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is noted that the Plan assumes that all commuters will use West Horndon railway station and other areas in Brentwood Borough to access a means of travelling to other places. It fails however to investigate the possible impacts on Basildon Borough's road and rail infrastructure, as a
neighbouring authority, arising from commuters or other road users choosing to access facilities within the Basildon Borough instead.
The Transport Assessment (PBA, 2018) discusses measures to ensure more effective bus access to and from West Horndon Station - serving an area including the new DHGV, as well as other employment sites within South Brentwood Growth Corridor. It is noted however that the need for new connections into Basildon Borough in terms of walking, cycling, public transport or road do not appear to be mentioned as being necessary to make it sustainable.
The Brentwood Borough IDP states that a new multi-modal interchange will be created at West Horndon Station. This will serve the DHGV, Childerditch, West Horndon and Enterprise Development sites. It also mentions the possibility that this could serve any future northern Thurrock developments. The Plan states that, the proposed DHGV settlement's transport mitigation measures will include potential dedicated bus route(s) connecting the development with West Horndon station and improvements at West Horndon station for vehicular, segregated cycle and public transport access from surrounding developments, as well as cycle storage and a bus interchange facility. The Council is therefore confused that in seeking to mitigate DHGV's impacts on the surrounding areas there is no mention of any impact being evaluated as spilling over into Basildon Borough and needing its own mitigation.
Laindon railway station, with three platforms and starter trains has greater commutable capacity than West Horndon and could become an alternative choice for residents within DHGV, despite a lack of new connections hampering their ability to make that choice easily without driving, via the A127. Whilst the Plan seeks to make provision for a new interchange at West Horndon to capture these movements more locally, should commuters still seek to use alternative stations including those outside of the Brentwood Borough such as Laindon, this will lead to increase demands on those stations' facilities, particularly parking, as well as the routes to get to them. Policy SP04 does set out the approach required by Paragraph 34 of the NPPF, but it does not explicitly mention that it has accounted for the spatial context of DHGV and the existing spatial form of the Brentwood Borough, where its higher-order settlements are further to the north. It does not state that it will support the possibility of developer contributions being used to mitigate this impact outside the Brentwood Borough in higher-order settlements which are closer that Brentwood Borough's own settlements, but outside the Brentwood Borough. This is considered to disregard how new residents living in the DHGV could behave in the future in seeking to access services and how this impact will therefore be adequately mitigated.
It seems that it an effort for the new DHGV to be self-sustaining, as set out in Paragraph 9.14, it has meant the Plan remains unclear, as to how it will relate to its neighbouring areas, particularly in terms of access and connectivity. This is considered a core sustainability principle for new developments and whether in exercising that choice, its residents will use what is to be provided within Brentwood Borough remains to be seen. They could use alternative routes (namely the A127 and West Mayne into Laindon) to access different facilities already available in closer higher order settlements outside Brentwood Borough. Considering that there are existing services that are already shared between the Borough's residents, e.g. schools, it is considered essential for a more practical and pragmatic approach to be adopted should the DHGV be permitted, including the policy reality that until such a time as the critical mass for new homes is established on-site, it is more likely that Basildon Borough's facilities in Laindon will be picking up the demands of new users arising from the neighbouring Brentwood Borough in the short-medium term.
There is no evidence presented by Brentwood Borough Council which indicates that DHGV's growth demands have been evaluated, in combination, with the projected demands arising from the Basildon Borough Local Plan. The Plan should not assume that such growth can just be absorbed by the nearby infrastructure and services in Basildon Borough and investment through developer contributions will be necessary. The infrastructure in the Basildon Borough has been evaluated for its capacity, its ability to grow and the scale of investment necessary to accommodate the growth in the Basildon Borough Local Plan to enable the Basildon growth to occur and there has not been enough information published during Regulation 18 (as set out in previous
representations) to be able to incorporate any testing of Brentwood's growth in as well. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP04 and R01(II).
Modification: The Plan should be modified to recognise that some impacts are likely to be cross-boundary and additional provisions should be incorporated into SP04 and RO1(I) that will support using S106/CIL arising from development in Brentwood Borough to be used for investment outside the Brentwood Borough, where it can be proven that there is reasonable likelihood of a direct or residual impacts otherwise being caused that need to be mitigated. This will make the Plan more effective, justified and in accordance with national policy.
Consultation Point: R01(I) and Appendix 1
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes the housing trajectory included within the Plan at Appendix 1. With regards to DHGV it is assumed that delivery will commence in 2022/23 (within the next five years) at a rate of 100 homes per annum, climbing to 300 homes per annum by 2026/27. As set out in earlier representations in respects of housing supply, this seems overly optimistic given that the allocation is currently within the extent of the Green Belt, requires masterplanning and will need to go through a planning application and elements of the condition discharge process before development on site can even commence. Development commencement on-site meanwhile, will be reliant on essential utility and infrastructure provision. No evidence is provided alongside the Plan, or within the associated Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), as to how the housing trajectory in general has been developed. Furthermore, there is no specific evidence published setting out the evidence base, or any form of a development framework/ masterplan for the DHGV that explains how the proposed accelerated rate of delivery will be possible to achieve.
The Council considers that the speed and level of growth in this boundary location may have implications for Basildon Borough's own housing market and risks the ability for it to be able to deliver housing at the rates necessary for its own housing trajectory. Early residents of the DHGV will rely on some services and facilities outside the village to meet their initial needs, unless these facilities were all to be front-loaded and wait for the population to gradually build up to make full use of them. As an example, the DHGV will require new primary and secondary school provision. However, whilst the Brentwood IDP shows the primary provision in particular being delivered early, it is understood to not be economically viable to operate a school with low pupil numbers, and it may be the case that the village grows for a number of years with these pupils travelling to other schools in the locality (principally within the Basildon Borough), whilst operational primary and then secondary education provision is secured and the village becomes more self-sufficient. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(I) and Appendix 1.
Modification: The Council therefore seeks for evidence to be provided demonstrating the realistic delivery trajectory for DHGV so that the potential short-medium term pressures on services and facilities in nearby settlements can be assessed, understood and planned for by service providers and neighbouring authorities. This will help ensure adequate mitigation provisions can be put in place to reduce any potential negative impacts on Basildon Borough residents living nearby. This will make the Plan justified and effective.
Consultation Point: R01(II)
Soundness - Effectiveness
Notwithstanding that the Council objects to many of the fundamental soundness principles of the DHGV, the Council would like to seek assurances written into Policy R01(II) that it will be invited by Brentwood Borough Council to become more involved in the detailed design and delivery of the new village. This will ensure that the strategic and cross-boundary impacts covered by the Duty to Cooperate and raised during the Council's response to the Plan at Regulation 18 and 19 stages are managed effectively during the development's implementation stages (assuming it is
considered sound), alongside the Basildon Borough Local Plan's own implementation. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II).
Modification: The Council would like a criterion added into Policy R01(II) under a new heading "Collaborative Approach" that will make it a requirement for neighbouring authorities to be engaged during the detailed design stages of DHGV to ensure strategic and cross boundary impacts are managed effectively during implementation.
This concludes the Council's representation.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23181

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: London Borough of Havering

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Section H refers to mitigations necessary to support the DHGV proposal but these do not adequately address the strategic implications on the wider highway network. The focus of the measures is about 'fitting' the proposal into the network with local measures rather than ensuring that the considerable traffic it may generate could be accommodated on the wider highway network as well as all the other growth planned for east London and south Essex. It is welcome that these issues are noted in the explanatory text to Policy BE11 (paragraph 5.97-5.102) but they should be referenced in the DHGV proposal.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy R01 : Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation should be amended :
* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network
* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the DHGV proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood
* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along the corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.
* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them
* to recognize that the scale of the proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated
* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (where the Local Plan addresses some issues relating to the wider highways network albeit without referring to DHGV)

Full text:

FORM 01
Comments made in regard to Strategic Allocation Policy R01 - Dunton Hills Garden Village (with particular reference to Policy R01 (II) Spatial Design)

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for Dunton Hills Garden Village. At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome. It is helpful that there is more clarity on implementation.

Some of the matters raised by the Council in its 2018 response (such as the importance of timely infrastructure provision and the detail of infrastructure to be provided) have been addressed.

A key element of the Council's 2018 response focused on the relationship between the DHGV proposal and its likely impact on the adjoining highway network given the scale of the development proposed (almost 260 hectares of residential lead development and some 2,700 new homes over the plan period).

The comments noted that the DHGV proposal adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the DHGV proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the DHGV proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The Policy R01 Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation in the current consultation Local Plan includes a section on Transport Impact Mitigations (Section H).

This refers to mitigations necessary to support the DHGV proposal but these do not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network. The focus of the measures is about 'fitting' the proposal into the network with local measures (such as junction improvements, bus routes and public transport improvements) rather than ensuring that the considerable traffic it may generate itself is capable of being accommodated on the wider highway network as well as all the other growth planned for east London and south Essex.

It is welcome that these issues are noted in in the explanatory text to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (paragraphs 5.97 - 5.102) but they should be referenced in the DHGV proposal because of its scale.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan sound or legally compliant, having regard to the matters that you identified above.

Policy R01 : Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation should be amended :

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the DHGV proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along the corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (where the Local Plan addresses some issues relating to the wider highways network albeit without referring to DHGV)

FORM 02
Comments made in regard to : Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park

At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome.

The policy / proposal is now for almost 26 hectares of land to be used for employment uses.

Nevertheless, the Local Plan does not evidence why the Brentwood Enterprise Park is would be an acceptable use at an important location in the Green Belt other than to refer the difficulties of accommodating the quantum of development within other parts of the Brentwood borough and the opportunity to capitalize on the connections in the Brentwood Growth Corridor (para. 7.23b).

Havering's 2018 comments noted that a key element in the preparation of the Havering Local Plan has been to ensure that the growth proposed in Havering over the period of the Local Plan is supported by timely and effective provision of infrastructure including transport infrastructure.

The comments noted that the Brentwood Enterprise Park adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The reasoned justification to Policy E11 notes that the proposal has a number of potential access points via the M25 Junction and Warley Street and that it will be expected to mitigate its impacts on the performance of the local and strategic road network. This does not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

The recognition of the importance of the proposal including sustainable transport measures for employees is supported and will help reduce traffic on the A127.
Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended :

* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to set out the views of Havering Council on the Brentwood Local Plan and to ensure that the Council has an opportunity to contribute to the discussions with the Inspector.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23182

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: London Borough of Havering

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

Change suggested by respondent:

Section H refers to mitigations necessary to support the DHGV proposal but these do not adequately address the strategic implications on the wider highway network. The focus of the measures is about 'fitting' the proposal into the network with local measures rather than ensuring that the considerable traffic it may generate could be accommodated on the wider highway network as well as all the other growth planned for east London and south Essex. It is welcome that these issues are noted in the explanatory text to Policy BE11 (paragraph 5.97-5.102) but they should be referenced in the DHGV proposal.

Changes to Plan:
Policy R01 : Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation should be amended :
* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network
* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the DHGV proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood
* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along the corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.
* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them
* to recognize that the scale of the proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated
* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (where the Local Plan addresses some issues relating to the wider highways network albeit without referring to DHGV)

Full text:

FORM 01
Comments made in regard to Strategic Allocation Policy R01 - Dunton Hills Garden Village (with particular reference to Policy R01 (II) Spatial Design)

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for Dunton Hills Garden Village. At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome. It is helpful that there is more clarity on implementation.

Some of the matters raised by the Council in its 2018 response (such as the importance of timely infrastructure provision and the detail of infrastructure to be provided) have been addressed.

A key element of the Council's 2018 response focused on the relationship between the DHGV proposal and its likely impact on the adjoining highway network given the scale of the development proposed (almost 260 hectares of residential lead development and some 2,700 new homes over the plan period).

The comments noted that the DHGV proposal adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the DHGV proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the DHGV proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The Policy R01 Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation in the current consultation Local Plan includes a section on Transport Impact Mitigations (Section H).

This refers to mitigations necessary to support the DHGV proposal but these do not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network. The focus of the measures is about 'fitting' the proposal into the network with local measures (such as junction improvements, bus routes and public transport improvements) rather than ensuring that the considerable traffic it may generate itself is capable of being accommodated on the wider highway network as well as all the other growth planned for east London and south Essex.

It is welcome that these issues are noted in in the explanatory text to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (paragraphs 5.97 - 5.102) but they should be referenced in the DHGV proposal because of its scale.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan sound or legally compliant, having regard to the matters that you identified above.

Policy R01 : Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation should be amended :

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the DHGV proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along the corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (where the Local Plan addresses some issues relating to the wider highways network albeit without referring to DHGV)

FORM 02
Comments made in regard to : Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park

At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome.

The policy / proposal is now for almost 26 hectares of land to be used for employment uses.

Nevertheless, the Local Plan does not evidence why the Brentwood Enterprise Park is would be an acceptable use at an important location in the Green Belt other than to refer the difficulties of accommodating the quantum of development within other parts of the Brentwood borough and the opportunity to capitalize on the connections in the Brentwood Growth Corridor (para. 7.23b).

Havering's 2018 comments noted that a key element in the preparation of the Havering Local Plan has been to ensure that the growth proposed in Havering over the period of the Local Plan is supported by timely and effective provision of infrastructure including transport infrastructure.

The comments noted that the Brentwood Enterprise Park adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The reasoned justification to Policy E11 notes that the proposal has a number of potential access points via the M25 Junction and Warley Street and that it will be expected to mitigate its impacts on the performance of the local and strategic road network. This does not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

The recognition of the importance of the proposal including sustainable transport measures for employees is supported and will help reduce traffic on the A127.
Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended :

* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to set out the views of Havering Council on the Brentwood Local Plan and to ensure that the Council has an opportunity to contribute to the discussions with the Inspector.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23199

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: National Highways

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Highways England has concerns in regards to the Local Plan developments impacts on the Strategic Road Network. Although policies BE11 and BE16 identify the need that "any significant impacts from the development on the highway network on highway safety must be effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree". The transport impacts of Dunton Hills and the Brentwood Enterprise Park site policies imply that they will be assessed in isolation. This assessment should be done as part of the wider Local Plan picture.

Change suggested by respondent:

For clarity, we suggest that the wording is amended to reflect that there is a need to mitigate the impacts of the full Local Plan rather than the developments within it individually. Any single development may have no discernible impact whereas cumulatively the Local Plan impacts may require mitigation. Accordingly we are looking for evidence on the cumulative impacts of the Local Plan. Similarly, you may wish to amend the wording of policies relating to individual allocations, particularly the strategic allocations for Dunton Hills in Policy R01 (ii) under Transport Impact Mitigations and Brentwood Enterprise Park in Policy E11. These two policies suggest that impacts for these two developments will be assessed in isolation rather than as part of a bigger Local Plan picture.

Full text:

Thank you for giving Highways England (HE) the opportunity to comment upon the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan setting out your development needs, policies and strategies over the period 2016 to 2033. Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such Highways England works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.
In the case of the Local Plan, Highways England is interested in the potential impact that the development might have upon the M25 Junctions 28 and 29 and the A12. We would be concerned as to whether there would be any adverse safety implications or material increase in queues and delays on the strategic road network as a result of your Local Plan development.
We have reviewed the Pre-Submission Plan and have the following comments:
As you are aware we have been in discussions with yourself about the transport assessment for the Local Plan concerning the impacts upon the SRN. We are continuing to liaise to look at how any required mitigation at M25 Junctions 28 and 29 may be assessed outside of this Regulation 19 consultation. This is implied if not specifically mentioned in Paragraph 5.101 of the main consultation document text. We look forward to the outcome of your Local Plan impact assessments on the two M25 junctions.
Policies BE11 and BE16 cover Strategic Transport Infrastructure and Mitigating the Transport Impacts of Development. Both policies The former states "any significant impacts from the development on the highway network on highway safety must be effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree in line with policy BE16. The latter policy states that new development will be required to "provide reasonable and proportionate financial contributions/mitigation measures where necessary to mitigate the transport impact of the development to an acceptable degree...Such measures should be provided to meet the first or early occupation of a site...".
For clarity, we suggest that the wording is amended to reflect that there is a need to mitigate the impacts of the full Local Plan rather than the developments within it individually. Any single development may have no discernible impact whereas cumulatively the Local Plan impacts may require mitigation. Accordingly we are looking for evidence on the cumulative impacts of the Local Plan. Similarly, you may wish to amend the wording of policies relating to individual allocations, particularly the strategic allocations for Dunton Hills in Policy R01 (ii) under Transport Impact Mitigations and Brentwood Enterprise Park in Policy E11. These two policies suggest that impacts for these two developments will be assessed in isolation rather than as part of a bigger Local Plan picture.
We note that Paragraph 5.102 Point 2 of the main submission document identifies M25 Junction 28 improvements being undertaken by Highways England and that further engagement will be required on this scheme. Additionally, Point 3 states that mitigation is being considered at M25 Junction 29 in relation to the Brentwood Enterprise Park development. Lower Thames Crossing is also mentioned as impacting upon Junction 29. Paragraph 5.102 is specifically related to third party mitigation to the network. From the Transport Assessment of the Local Plan we are aware that additional Local Plan development is likely to impact upon these two junctions and potentially requiring mitigation. Again, we will continue to liaise in relation to this assessment.
We hope that you find these comments useful and we look forward to further correspondence in due course. We will be in touch again when we receive details from you of the Local Plan impact assessments upon M25 Junctions 28 and 29.

Attachments:

Support

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23806

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Hermes Fund Managers Limited

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Representation Summary:

Policy R01 (II) d- SUPPORT

Full text:

We write further to the above consultation on the above on behalf of our clients, Hermes Investment Management and Hermes Property Unit Trust ("Hermes"), the asset manager and owner of the West Horndon Industrial Estate, Station Road, West Horndon (your site refs 021 & 022). You may recall, Hermes acquired Threadneedle's interest (approximately covered by your site ref 020) last year, so they now own the bulk of the larger West Horndon Industrial Estate which includes your site refs 020 and 021. Their discussions to acquire the land shown by your site ref 152 are well advanced and will be subject to planning permission for the residential-led, mixed use redevelopment of the land which is allocated by R02 in the Pre-submission draft of the Local Plan. As you know form the last consultation in March 2018, our preparation of a planning application for residential led mixed-use development on the western portion of the industrial estate (including land identified as site refs 152, 021 and part of 020) was well advanced, and we had expected to submit the planning application sometime last year. However, following the acquisition of Threadneedle's interest and taking account of the views of Brentwood's officers and West Horndon Parish Council, Hermes took the decision to expand the planning application to include the whole of the land identified as R02. This has resulted in additional work and will require further pre-application discussions and consultations (with Brentwood BC, Essex CC and West Horndon Parish Council). Our revised aim is to make the hybrid planning application for the whole site later this year (around September/ October). Hermes has made representations to the various drafts of the local plan over the time of its ownership. It is not our intention to repeat any of those in relation to the Pre-submission draft of the Local Plan. Instead, our representations will focus solely on matters that affect the draft allocation R02. Please note, in expressing support or comment on the matters set out below, Hermes is affirming they consider the Pre-submission draft of the Local Plan to be sound. Page 22 Settlement Category - SUPPORT: West Horndon as a large village within settlement Category 2. Page 24 para 2.14 - SUPPORT for improvements to access to West Horndon station arising from and facilitated by Dunton Hill Garden Village. Page 39 para 3.21 (b) - SUPPORT. Page 92 Policy BE11 (B ii) - SUPPORT Strategic Transport Infrastructure designed to improve access to West Horndon station; arising from and facilitated by Dunton Hill Garden Village. Page 95 para 5.96 (c) - SUPPORT Page 96 para5.105 - SUPPORT Page 103 para 5.121 - SUPPORT Page 114 para 5.155 - SUPPORT Page 177 Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations include 2.0 hectares of R02 - SUPPORT & COMMENT: insofar as this includes the employment to be retained on the site, as well as the new employment opportunities created by the new village centre (which will include retail and non-retail uses). Page 181 para 7.30 - SUPPORT Page 185 Policy PC07 Retail and Commercial Leisure Growth - SUPPORT & COMMENT: it is important to note the Brentwood Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (Dec2014) by NLP. The emerging West Horndon master plan includes a new village centre which incorporates shops and non-retail uses, such as potential health facilities. NLP suggested an additional 2000sqm of retail may be appropriate as part of the redevelopment of the industrial estate. Our latest masterplan shows around 2700sqm, but this includes non-retail uses. Page 186 para 7.53 - SUPPORT Page 187 Policy PC08 - SUPPORT& COMMENT: the new village centre for West Horndon is likely to include an additional 2700sqm of retail and non-retail accommodation. Page 231 Policy NE10 Green Belt - COMMENT: West Horndon is not within green belt, so it is unclear what purpose reference to it in this policy serves. Page 244 para 9.7 - SUPPORT the reference to R02 on the list of Strategic Housing Allocations. Page 254 Policy R01 (II) d- SUPPORT Page 269 Policy R02: LAND AT WEST HORNDON INDUSTRIAL ESTATE & supporting paragraphs - SUPPORT & COMMENT: Hermes' draft masterplan for the whole site includes a variety of dwelling types, including flats (making up the proposed village centre, nearest to the Station Road entrance and West Horndon station) and 2, 3 & 4 bed houses. At present, the R02 site measures 17.6 hectares gross, which nets down to 15hectares (after allowing for 15% POS and landscaping) in the latest draft of the masterplan. The current layout is nearer 750 dwellings, which is well over the figure of "around 580 new homes" set out in the policy. Page 309 Appendix 1 Housing Trajectory - SUPPORT & COMMENT: the timing of the supply of houses accords with the proposed phasing and Hermes' management of the existing leases on the estate. Please note comments in relation to the numbers of new dwellings the site can accommodate. Page 318 Residential Lead Sites - SUPPORT & COMMENT: it is unclear how Brentwood BC have worked out the gross (17.06ha) and net (10.23ha) figures as set out in the table accompanying the site allocation plan. It is also the case that the draft Local Plan's gross to net calculations given for all the larger residential allocation sites varies, sometimes considerably. At present, the R02 site measures 17.6 hectares in total, which nets down to 15 hectares (after allowing for 15% POS and landscaping) in the latest draft of the masterplan. The current layout is showing the number of dwellings to be nearer to 750, well over the figure of "around 580 new homes" set out in the policy. It is also noted that the density of development is lower in the Hermes' latest masterplan (50dph) than that suggested by draft Local Plan (56.7dph), although it is accepted that this depends entirely on the chosen base. Please let me know if anything is unclear. We would ask that you acknowledge receipt of these representations.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23987

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson

Agent: AECOM

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Policy clause C(f) states: "a green infrastructure [..] zone." This matter needs careful consideration in advance of submission in light of Basildon's representations and their erroneous position on Green Belt coalescence and countryside encroachment in their draft plan (which fails to allocate sufficient land to meet needs). Brentwood should provide further clarity that this separation can be achieved without sterilising large tracts of the allocation.
Policy clause D(c) states "pathways through [...] points". It is premature at this stage to place overly restrictive pathway design where they may be sound place-making reasons for not following this approach in all areas.
Policy clause I(a) states that emphasis will be given to: "incorporating car sharing clubs and electric vehicle only development". Whilst the principle is supported, this may not be appropriate for all areas of this large allocation and would be overly restrictive.
Policy clause L(b) includes a small typo for BREEAM. This clause should make clear that BREEAM is for certain types of building only.

Change suggested by respondent:

A modest multifunctional green gap running north-south in close proximity to the Borough boundary would be a proportionate response in this location.

Full text:

Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson representations Brentwood Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan (February 2019)
Merits of our client's landholdings and the Dunton Hills Garden Village
Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson's landholdings (part of allocation R01) are unconstrained, suitable, deliverable and available. As such the landholding can be brought forward as part of the wider Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation.
Our clients are housebuilders, not land promoters, and are seeking delivery at the earliest opportunity pending suitable access. Crest Nicholson and Bellway Homes will continue to work with officers and Councillors (and other landowners/developers) to help bring forward this key site for meeting local housing needs in South Essex. It is absolutely right that the allocation should not be anchored to the work that will be carried out as part of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and the emerging Joint Strategic Plan (JSP).
The identification of strategic scale sites to meet Brentwood's housing needs is supported, as is the principle of a new settlement via the Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation (Policy R01) and its ambition for the delivery of additional homes beyond the plan period. The allocation represents an efficient use of greenfield land adjudged to be sustainable. Similarly we commend the Council for taking the decision to bring forward strategic greenbelt release alongside a comprehensively planned new settlement.
Our clients would support improved integration with Basildon alongside a landscape solution/approach agreed via a Statement of Common Ground and complementary policy positions (and/or supporting text) in both the Brentwood and Basildon Local Plans. This would help to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village and the future expansion of West Basildon whilst maintaining separation physically through the provision of publicly accessible green infrastructure and improving connectivity for new and existing residents. Our clients do not support the position taken by Basildon Borough Council and have submitted representations objecting to the draft Basildon Local Plan.
Policy SP02: Managing Growth
Paragraphs 4.11 - 4.21 of the draft plan set out Brentwood's housing need position based upon the application of the standard methodology for calculating a minimum Local Housing Need figure; and the identification of a 20% buffer of housing sites for the first five years of the plan. The plan, at paragraph 1.38, also states that:
"..it may be necessary to review the Brentwood Local Plan, at least in parts, to ensure any opportunities for further growth and infrastructure provision in the Borough identified in the Joint Strategic Plan can be realised."
Our clients support this approach. Brentwood is seeking to meet their identified housing needs in full plus a sufficient buffer in the early part of the plan period. Crucially the draft plan is not using the JSP as a reason for deferring difficult planning decisions. As such, the draft plan is not reliant upon the emerging JSP to meet Brentwood's needs up to 2033. There has been no consultation to date on the JSP (as at March 2019) and it would be wholly unsound to rely upon a future JSP to meet identified needs up to 2033. Our clients support the pragmatic approach set out by Brentwood which is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 11, 16 and 26 - a 'positively' prepared plan that seeks 'opportunities to meet the development needs' of their area and is 'sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change').
Our clients would advocate delaying submission of the publication plan until the 2018 affordability ratio data is released by the Office for National Statistics (the data used in the standard methodology for calculating housing need), due for publication in March/April 2019. This would allow time for factual updates to be made to Policy SP02 and housing target. Should submission come before the publication of the affordability ratio data, Brentwood should consider over allocating sites to increase the buffer of sites over for the whole plan period - sufficient to provide flexibility in respect of any increases brought about by the new affordability data published prior to or shortly after submission.
aecom.com
7/14
The recent release of the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) in February 2019 confirmed that Brentwood and all the other ASELA authorities (with the exception of Thurrock) have to identify a 20% buffer to their five year housing land supply and prepare a HDT Action Plan by August 2019. The minimum Local Housing Need figure (produced by the new standard methodology) will be applied to all authorities from 2018/19 for the purposes of the HDT (unless there is a plan that is less than 5 years old). As such Brentwood (and Basildon) will both be subject to HDT assessment on the basis of the minimum Local Housing Need figures until such time that their plans are adopted.
Table 1 (below) shows the HDT results published by MHCLG (19th February 2019) for all Councils that make up the ASELA. This shows housing delivery has only been achieved in one of the past three monitoring years (2016/17) for Basildon and it was never achieved by Brentwood. The HDT results evidence a persistent under delivery of housing in the South Essex region. Brentwood and Basildon are at risk of failing the HDT thresholds in 2019 and 2020. At present, Brentwood is in danger of falling below the 45% threshold this November 2019. This would leave the authority open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development (the 'tilted balance') and susceptible to speculative applications outside of the identified draft allocations. For Basildon there is a real risk that they will also be captured by the presumption in favour of sustainable development (75% threshold) as early as November 2020. Basildon's position is even more precarious given that they have not identified sufficient land to meet their minimum Local Housing Need, let alone a 20% buffer for the first five years, in their previous consultation draft plan.
Table 1 South Essex HDT results (MHCLG, February 2019)
[see attachment]
This illustrates the severity of the housing crisis in South Essex and the pressing requirement for all ASELA authorities to identify sufficient land supply (to meet their needs and a 20% buffer for the first five years) and maintain the plan-led approach. Basildon's failure to allocate sufficient sites to meet housing needs will impact the other ASELA partners (e.g. increased unmet needs in the region).
Duty to Cooperate
The above issues should be addressed as a matter of urgency through Brentwood and Basildon's Duty to Cooperate Statements of Common Ground. A Duty to Cooperate position statement is welcome, although the MOU with the ASELA is insufficient to evidence the detailed Duty to Cooperate matters that need to be addressed with Basildon. A Statement of Common Ground that outlines areas of uncommon ground would be just as valuable in advance of submission of both plans and the forthcoming examinations.
This will help to avoid creating inconsistencies or prejudice any future plan making as part of the ASLEA JSP. If Basildon and Brentwood both wish to avoid the appearance of sprawl along the A127, this can be achieved through a simple Statement of Common Ground and via identical high-level policies (or supporting guidance) in each Local Plan. At present the current policy position does not ensure an integrated approach to delivery of the Garden Village and adjacent sites to the West of Basildon. It is our client's view that a failure to tackle this issue head-on now could stall delivery on Dunton Hills Garden Village. The JSP is not the appropriate vehicle for resolving a planning issue within the emerging Basildon and Brentwood plans; this matter must be resolved prior to submission, of both Local Plans (ideally via a Statement of Common Ground).
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in Green Belt / Policy HP18: Designing Landscape and the Public Realm
Our clients support the strategic release of greenbelt sites in sustainable locations. Dunton Hills Garden Village has followed a robust Green Belt review; Sustainability Appraisal; and site selection process. The draft plan does not allocate land between Dunton Hills Garden Village and West Horndon; therefore it maintains physical separation and avoids the coalescence of the new settlement and existing built up area of West Horndon. To date there is no evidence that it would be possible to meet the Borough's acute housing needs without amending the Green Belt boundaries as proposed in the draft plan.
The Stage III Green Belt Review January 2019 (GBR3) continues the work of the previous two stages. Again the methodology used appears sound and has been consistently applied. GBR3 assesses the DHGV site, Parcel 200, as being Not Contained, exhibiting Significant Separation Reduction between settlements, as being Functional Countryside and of Limited Relationship to Historic Towns. This results in an overall conclusion of Parcel 200 making a moderate to high contribution to the Green Belt. As with the LSCA the scale of DHGV inevitably results in elevated scores.
The Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation (shaded yellow) and wider Green Belt parcel incorporating land West of Basildon in Basildon Borough (shaded red) shown on Figure 1 (below) is an area bounded by the A127, the A128, a railway line and the western edge of Basildon - there are few (if any) examples nationally of more contained and defensible boundary in Green Belt terms.
Figure 1 Green Belt Context: Land West of Basildon (red) and Dunton Hills Garden Village (yellow)
[see attachment]
There would be clear separation maintained between Dunton Hills Garden Village and West Horndon in Brentwood Borough. Paragraph 9.12 is also supported as it recognises that "The B148 (West Mayne) is the eastern road beyond the borough boundary separating the site from the built-up area of Basildon". If Dunton Hills Garden Village and the land West of Basildon (in Basildon Borough) are both allocated it is only logical to remove all of this land from the Green Belt based upon the strong defensible boundaries that exist for both areas. Landscape approach, design principles and physical separation can (as previously discussed) be dealt with via a Statement of Common Ground and complementary Local Plan policies (and guidance) in the respective plans. Policy R01 includes a detailed statutory policy to ensure the new settlement is comprehensively planned via landscape-led approach. This will ensure the development is not simply ribbon development along the A127 and instead an autonomous Settlement Category 2 Garden Village that will complement the existing settlement hierarchy and is well related to the existing communities of Basildon and Laindon and West Horndon.
The Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options October 2018 (LSCA) assigns a landscape capacity to the potential allocations. The methodology used appears sound and has been consistently applied. The LSCA identifies the DHGV site, Parcel 200, as being of high landscape sensitivity, medium - low landscape value and medium - medium low landscape capacity. It is noted that the scale of the strategic options considered make comparison with smaller sites difficult. The scale of DHGV inevitably results in elevated scores.
The site is not the subject of any landscape quality designations that would prevent development. Our clients consider that Policy HP18: Designing Landscape and the Public Realm, in combination with Policy R01(I) clause C, provide an adequate policy framework for guiding a future landscape scheme - including the provision of green infrastructure between R01 and the development of the West of Basildon.
Policy R01: Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation
The policy would benefit from being shortened and simplified. Much of the detail could instead be covered in the supporting text. Our clients would recommend a less prescriptive policy in favour of a series of development principles. The policy also recognises the appropriate phasing of infrastructure and mechanisms for delivery. However, our clients have a number of detailed comments to help enhance the clarity and utility of the draft policy.
R01(I)
 Clause B uses the term "self-sustaining" - this is currently an undefined term in the context of the facilities that may be required by future residents. It is likely that services and schooling would also be accessed in Basildon and so the policy should also recognise the importance with connectivity to nearby allocations and settlements in Basildon Borough. Whilst appreciating the need for a garden village to be separate, it should also be appropriately connected and complimentary to nearby settlements.
 There is a slight inconsistency between policy clauses A and D in the use of "around 2,700 homes" and "at least 2,700 homes" in the plan period. Our clients would favour the more positive "at least" in light of the pressing housing needs in the area.
 Policy clause D(c) currently expresses a requirement for employment land as 5.5ha. An alternative approach would be to also reference a jobs figure, employment densities are not fixed and the policy will need to remain flexible to provide the optimum employment solution on the site up to 2033.
 Policy clause D(d) references a co-located Secondary school, but this term is not defined in terms of what facilities could be appropriately co-located or any indication on forms of entry etc. This clause could cross reference to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan that shall remain a living documented capable of being updated as the development of the site evolves.
 Policy clause D(h) states 50% of the "total land area", this term is not defined and may have implications for the net developable area. Without the benefit of a detailed masterplan and Environment Statement supporting an application this requirement appears needlessly onerous and will make the allocation less flexible. We would suggest removal of a specific percentage in advance of further masterplanning and consultation.
R01 (II)
 Policy clause C(f) states: "a green infrastructure buffer / wedge on the eastern boundary with Basildon Borough to achieve visual separation to help significantly improve the landscaped and habitat value thus reinforcing the beneficial purpose and use of the green belt in that zone." This matter needs careful consideration in advance of submission in light of Basildon's representations and their erroneous position on Green Belt coalescence and countryside encroachment in their draft plan (which fails to allocate sufficient land to meet needs). Brentwood should provide further clarity that this separation can be achieved without sterilising large tracts of the allocation. A modest multifunctional green gap running north-south in close proximity to the Borough boundary would be a proportionate response in this location.
 Policy clause D(c) states "pathways through the green and blue infrastructure (GBI) network will be made of permeable material and follow a coherent treatment throughout the village. The pathways will all connect into a circular walk, with interconnected shortcut routes and be signposted offering directions to key destination points". It is premature at this stage to place overly restrictive pathway design where they may be sound place-making reasons for not following this approach in all areas.
 Policy clause I(a) states that emphasis will be given to: "incorporating car sharing clubs and electric vehicle only development". Whilst the principle is supported, this may not be appropriate for all areas of this large allocation and would be overly restrictive.
 Policy clause L(b) includes a small typo for BREEAM. This clause should make clear that BREEAM is for certain types of building only.
R01 (III)
 Clause B states: "The development and phased delivery of DHGV must ensure the timely delivery of the required on-site and off-site infrastructure to address the impact of the new garden village". Whilst supported and the timely delivery on infrastructure is essential in the creation of a sense of community, off-site infrastructure may be beyond the control of the primary land owners/promoter, and risks stalling development if a Grampian condition is envisaged.
An explicit policy clause is urgently required to ensure for a no ransom position. The primary developer must build roads up to the boundary of Crest Nicholson and Bellway Homes landholding. Without this added clause the allocation would be ineffective based upon the tests of soundness.
The Site benefits from the involvement of volume housebuilders which, according to the Letwin Review (2018), leads to a variety in product and higher build out rates. An extensive analysis of national house builder annual reports, conducted by Turley on behalf of Bellway Homes, demonstrates that average delivery rates (per outlet) range from between 40-58 units pa1. There is potential for sites (normally larger sites) to see a number of outlets building new homes at any one time. Additional outlets are sometimes in the form of a different house builder, but it can also be in the form of different products sold from different marketing suites by the same house builder. Crest Nicholson and Bellway Home's landholdings are jointly promoted in order to deliver high quality sustainable developments at pace and will help to achieve the housing trajectory set out in Appendix 1 of the draft plan.
The plan's delivery trajectory relies on increased delivery in the later part of the plan period (partly reliant on infrastructure investment). This emphasises the importance of infrastructure equalisation and removing any ransom scenarios as far as practically possible through statutory policy. In addition, it would be prudent for the ASELA authorities to work together to lever in external funding for reinforcements such as the gas pipeline to enable an alternative access arrangements and internal connectivity that would release more development land for housing and public open space later in the plan period.
R01 Supporting text comments:
 Paragraph 9.30 includes a reference to 'Medium' density- but this is not defined. The allocation location is in close proximity to Basildon and West Horndon and the potential for sustainable modes of transport lends itself to higher densities in district and local centres.
Transport policies B11 - B17
The general approach taken to transport within the Local Plan with the Built Environment policies (BE11 to BE17) is supported and it can be seen that these policies are feeding through into the policies for the site specific allocations.
The evidence base for the Local Plan includes Brentwood Borough Local Plan Transport Assessment (Local Plan TA) dated (October 2018) prepared by PBA and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) prepared by the Council. These documents together provides the transport element of the evidence base and support the Council's proposed development strategy including the proposed development at Dunton Hills. They are essential elements of the evidence base and their soundness is not questioned in these representation, however, the conclusions of the Local Plan TA and the IDP need to be better reflected in the Local Plan.
The Local Plan TA sets out the approach to the modelling work, results of modelling and junction assessment, highlights those worse performing junctions that may require mitigations, the sustainable measure proposed and the impact this has on the junction assessment to enable the development sites to come forward. The assessment covers key 27 junctions within Brentwood planning authority.
The assessment assumed that DHGV would provide 2,500 new homes in the Local Plan period along with 5.5ha of employment land. In addition, number of sites located within Basildon Borough Council and Havering Borough Council were included within the reference case scenario in order to accurately assess the impact of Brentwood Local Plan. The West Basildon Urban Extension was included within the reference case assuming provision of 1000 new homes as per 2016 Basildon Local Plan publication.
The Local Plan TA identifies a number of junctions that would need to be improved across the Borough to support the development proposed in the Local Plan. However, the Local Plan Submission Version does not include reference to these. As an example, the following table contains the identified improvements in the surrounding roads to Dunton Hills Garden Village.
Table 2 Results of PBA capacity assessment, Brentwood Local Plan Evidence Base
[see attachment]
While it is clear that some of these improvements would be provided via Essex County Council (ECC) or Highways England as the relevant highway authorities there is no reference made in the Local Plan to them. It would be expected that the evidence base would transfer through to the IDP to be clear on how and when these identified infrastructure improvements would be provided.
As each identified allocated site comes forward to a planning application stage it will define what highway improvements are needed through the Transport Assessment associated with the individual site. However, guidance should be given on what improvements have been identified as part of the Local Plan TA to ensure that the need for them is considered and if they are required then how would they be funded i.e. guidance is needed on the scope for any future Transport Assessments to support developments.
The IDP contains a similar table for highway infrastructure improvements and those relevant to Dunton Hills Garden Village are listed in Table 3 below:
Table 3 IDP Schedule extract.
In addition to four infrastructure requirements relating specifically to DHGV a number of requirements are set out in the IDP for new developments and site allocations coming forward in the Local Plan period. Key improvements to be delivered as part of DHGV development are:
ï‚· DHGV: Widening Connectivity - further feasibility studies required to improvements of pedestrian connectivity across the A127 and A128;
ï‚· DHGV: Walkways/ Cycleways - provision of a good footway and cycle way network;
ï‚· DHGV: Sustainable Transport Infrastructure - provision of cycle hub within the DHGV site; and
ï‚· DHGV: Public Realm and Village Square - subject to detailed masterplanning good quality pedestrian centres should be provided.
It is acknowledged within the proposed policy for Dunton Hills Garden Village that reference is made for the need for a Transport Assessment report to be undertaken and this is where the detailed assessment can be made of the highway infrastructure needed to support the proposed allocation. However, there should be some reference to the published evidence base to guide the scope of this work. This is not to say that the identified improvements will be needed, but they should be considered as they have been identified within the evidence base.
Attendance at the examination hearing sessions
Our clients request attendance at the relevant hearing sessions to make verbal submissions in response to matters and questions related to: the Duty to Cooperate; housing numbers and the spatial strategy, landscape, transport, infrastructure, deliverability and the strategic allocations. We reserve the right to make further representations at the examination hearing sessions, should work on Brentwood's Community Infrastructure Levy evolve in respect of any implications on strategic sites and their ability to deliver policy compliant schemes.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23990

Received: 15/05/2019

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Limited

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy RO1 (II) Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

A. The locally-led garden village will be developed collaboratively to achieve a high quality Dunton Hills Garden Village development. Consent for Development will be permitted Planning permission will be granted if the masterplan and supporting design guidance for the development demonstrates how the spatial vision, design principles as well as Policies HP12 - HP18 on securing high-quality of placemaking is achieved to guide a coherent development across the whole allocation site.

Distinctive Character, Harmonic Design, Compact Density

B. Proposals must demonstrate how they will meet and embed key qualities to ensure distinctive, harmonic and popular design is achieved, by ensuring:

a. the unique character of Dunton Hills is informed by its distinct spatial, landscape and heritage qualities;
b. the design of sub-neighbourhoods and streets, that may take on their own unique character, are harmoniously integrated to form an overall Dunton Hills Garden Village identity - through the coherent and complementary use of materials and design of the public realm in line with Policy HP18; and
c. an appropriate range of densities are achieved across the site to ensure a compact and highly networked, walkable and fine-grained environment with a highly connected street-based layout. This should be demonstrated by an accompanying density plan.

Ecological Networks, Biodiversity Net Gain, Green Infrastructure and Public Realm

C. A green and blue infrastructure (GBI) plan should be submitted that demonstrates how the design of GBI will be an integral part of the masterplan layout to achieve multi-functional, coherent and connected GBI in line with Policy BE18. The GBI plan should be informed by a comprehensive wildlife and habitat survey and heritage and landscape character assessment. The GBI Plan should incorporate the following:

a. a highly connected and biodiverse ecological network that incorporates existing habitats of value and natural features, and where relevant new habitats such as trees, tree lines and hedges, hedgerows, ponds and lakes, among others, in line with Policy NE01, NE03 and NE04;

b. a variety of activity nodes and treatments for recreation and leisure opportunities throughout the GBI, including public natural parkland, pockets of village greens, local nature reserve, allotment sites, sports pitches and fields;

c. a streetscape that continues the green infrastructure through the residential areas and village centre with creative landscape schemes including tree-lined streets, grass verges and rain gardens;

d. an appropriate amount, height and depth of green infrastructure screening adjacent to A127, A128, rail tracks to mitigate noise and air pollution;

e. well-designed interfaces between the green open space and the built structures should ensure passive surveillance, with coherent and gradual transitions and clear boundaries and vistas; and

f. a green infrastructure buffer/wedge on the eastern boundary with Basildon Borough to help achieve visual separation between the two settlements and to help significantly improve the landscaped and habitat value by reinforcing the existing woodland, trees and hedgerows with new planting. thus reinforcing the beneficial purpose and use of the green belt in that zone.

Sport, Recreational, Leisure and Public Open Space

D. The provision for leisure, recreation and sport opportunities must be an integral part of the GBI Plan; it should incorporate as a minimum the following provision:

a. an appropriate amount of sports and recreation provision to provide a variety of pitch sizes and facilities in line with Policy BE23;

b. the GBI following Nightingale Lane should incorporate a heritage trail with signage and history information boards;

c. pathways through the GBI network will be made of permeable material and follow a coherent treatment throughout the village. The pathways will all connect into a circular walk, with interconnected shortcut routes and be signposted offering directions to key destination points; and

d. an appropriate number of play spaces shall be incorporated throughout the GBI network, with an emphasis on quality natural play provision to encourage outdoor adventure play and learning.





Views
E. Key views shall be safeguarded and maintained and become distinctive features on of the new development. This should be informed by a key views assessment and proposals should demonstrate the following:

a. how the urban layout will incorporate safeguarded views in terms of the structure, morphology and how the streets and avenues are orientated to maintain the visual landscape corridors;

b. how visual separation with Basildon will be achieved on the eastern boundary of the site; and

c. how the settlement orientations might also take advantage of opportunities for passive heating and cooling.

Embedding Heritage Assets

F. Development should take account of the desirability to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets retain, integrate and where appropriate enhance both designated and non-designated heritage assets to provide an attractive and distinctive garden village in line with Policies HP19, HP20 and HP22. Incorporation of these assets should be informed by a Landscape Character Assessment and a Heritage Statement Assessment in line with guidance, having key consideration which should provide for the following provisions:

a. protection and enhancement of existing public rights of way;

b. the integration of the historic core and listed buildings of the farmstead with new development are well integrated as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre; and

c. protection of listed buildings during the construction phase. and during any retrofitting to ensure the structures are fit-for-purpose for new uses.

Sustainable Travel

G. Priority should be given to cycle and pedestrian movements and access to public transport. Development should therefore, promote and incorporate sustainable mobility and transport measures in line with Policy BE12, Policy BE13, and Policy BE14. The development will be required to integrate 'Active by Design' measures throughout the street network to promote healthy travel options. The development will be required to incorporate a dedicated segregated cycle lane to ensure cycling is safe for all ages and to help discourage single occupancy car use for short internal trips. Where appropriate, this should be integrated with the off-street cycle routes throughout the GBI network to ensure safe routes to schools and to other recreation facilities and key destinations.

Transport Improvements Impact Mitigations

H. The proposed development will be required to demonstrate that through design and management it makes the best use of this sustainable location by maximising mobility and hence social inclusion in order of movement priority set out in G and mitigate any predicted transport impacts consistent with measures identified in Policies BE11 and BE16. It will be required to demonstrate the degree of effect on movement and travel within the local area and the importance of those effects in the context of current national planning policy. This should be informed by the latest a Transport Assessment, which should be monitored and re-evaluated throughout the lifespan of the build-out, to account for changes in transport technology and wider strategic transport network changes. As a minimum, improvements mitigations will include:

a. New junctions to access the garden village along with junction improvements where appropriate on the highway network, including any necessary traffic calming measures at key gateways, to create a sense of arrival;

b. public shared travel systems, which may incorporate fixed route buses and demand responsive buses, connecting the development with potential dedicated bus route(s) connecting the development with West Horndon station, nearby employment locations and other key social infrastructure;

c. IT platforms for private and public shared travel systems;

d. public and/or private shared travel systems to nearby school facilities prior to the delivery of on-site school facilities;

d. financial contribution towards improvements at West Horndon station for vehicular, segregated cycle and public transport access from surrounding developments as well as cycle storage and a bus interchange facility; and

e. illustrative plans to indicate key connections to the surrounding green infrastructure destinations and key nearby employment sites.

Clean Vehicle Alternatives

I. The development should promote car-limiting and clean vehicle alternatives in line with Policies BE12 and BE15. Emphasis Support will be given to:

a. incorporating car sharing clubs and electric vehicle only development;

b. time limiting car parking in the central locations; and clean air zones around the main schools and community buildings.

Street Hierarchy

J. The street hierarchy shall be designed to promote a highly connected, permeable garden village that promotes walking and cycling, yet accommodate the vehicular accessibility requirements for servicing, refuse, emergency access and bus routing. Proposals should demonstrate how they are incorporating the following provisions:

a. the development shall be a 20 mile an hour zone ensuring the safety of the public realm;

b. main street(s) into the garden village from the main arterial routes (A127/A128) will adopt a tree-lined boulevard approach and be designed to slow down the traffic, making it clear that it is now a neighbourhood zone;

c. enhancement of public footpaths, public rights of way routes (such as Nightingale Lane) and any bridleways throughout the GBI network, to coherently connect back to the residential pedestrian links; and

d. residential streetscape should be designed to incorporate grass meridians, verges and trees/tree lined avenues to help slow down the traffic and give the road an instant village feel.

Village Centre(s) - Retail Town centre uses, Community and Employment Opportunities

K. Proposals for the placement and design of the village centre(s) should be informed by a an appropriate retail hierarchy study that assesses the needs of the new community taking into account existing provision in the surrounding area village centre needs, based on the supply and demand of the surrounding area. As a minimum this should incorporate the following:

a. the location of the main village centre should incorporate the historic farmstead in the centre of the site, creating a heritage legacy for the village centre;

a. the village centre(s) should be designed to be mixed-use, with a range of commercial and community uses along ground floor frontages and a mix of uses on upper floors including residential and small-scale employment;

b. the village centre(s) should provide localised opportunities for employment with a variety of work spaces, including flexible incubator/affordable spaces that are complementary to district-level service centre uses; and

c. delivery of employment spaces should demonstrate a healthy-by-design approach, informed by leading industry guidance on the design of healthy and productive workplaces.

Social Infrastructure

L. Proposals for the design of social infrastructure such as schools, health facilities and community spaces must demonstrate how they have incorporated key learning points and knowledge from the interior design sectors to deliver environments conducive to human health and social wellbeing. Design proposals which demonstrate the following will be supported:

a. design informed by the latest knowledge and principles of human-centred design, biophilic design, and sustainable healthcare;

b. design which demonstrates the adoption of relevant industry standards, such as BREEAM or WELL standard; and

c. facilities that are designed to be flexible to allow for wider community uses; for example, the use of the school in out-of-school hours for activities such as adult learning classes, other community activities, or the use of the school playing fields for community sports.

Locally-led Garden Village

A. As a locally-led garden village, the private sector should work pro-actively and collaboratively with the public sector to plan and design the masterplan and design principles for the Dunton Hills site allocation. This will require:

a. community involvement to inform the design and delivery requirements from the outset; the approach should be outlined in a supporting Community Engagement Strategy; partnership working with key industry and public sector stakeholders is encouraged, especially to inform the evolution of the masterplan and determine the complex infrastructure requirements, in line with county level requirements; and

b. implemention of a Jobs Brokerage Scheme to ensure that new jobs created on site go to local people.

Development Phasing

B. The development and phased delivery of DHGV must ensure the timely delivery of the required on-site and off-site infrastructure to address the impact of the new garden village and help the early establishment of a cohesive community. Proposals should be accompanied by a phasing plan to demonstrate how delivery will be phased, managed, accelerated and governed, without compromising quality or viability.

Stewardship

C. At the appropriate time, planning applications must include a supporting statement setting out Planning permission will be granted for development provided that the long-term sustainable governance and stewardship arrangements (management, maintenance and renewal) for the community assets including green-blue infrastructure, the public realm and community and other relevant facilities to be funded by the developer. Considerations should be given to devices such as legal covenants in deeds to establish responsibilities over certain matters of care, such as front gardens, communal gardens, public realm.

Full text:

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 24084

Received: 20/05/2019

Respondent: LaSalle Land Limited Partnership

Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village. Policy seems aspirational rather than based on clear testing and evidence or needs and impacts. Requirements such as a green buffer/wedge purpose is unclear, no landscape or visual impact assessment is considered. Transport Mitigation is not detailed, Viability assessment has a zero cost for 3,500 rather than the proposed 2,700 in the plan. A new viability analysis is needed.

Change suggested by respondent:

There needs to be prepared an updated, comprehensive viability analysis
of the DHGV proposals including all costs, site specific infrastructure requirements,
CIL and modelling of the effects of all of the proposed design and land use
requirements set out in the Local Plan, including those stated in Policy R01 (I) and
R01 (II), policy needs redrafting in light of evidence.

Full text:

Representations for and on LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village
March 2019
Introduction
1. Chilmark Consulting Ltd. (CCL) are instructed by and write for and on behalf of
LaSalle Land Limited Partnership (LLLP) with respect to the Brentwood Borough
Local Plan: Pre-Submission Plan (BBLP) published for consultation by Brentwood
Borough Council (BBC) in January 2019.
2. This representation is concerned with Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills
Garden Village.
3. This representation must be read in conjunction with the other representations
submitted by LLLP dealing with related matters.
Nature of Representation
4. Policy R01 (II) is concerned with establishing design principles and requirements for
the proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).
Overall Consideration
5. Much of Policy R01 (II) appears, in LLLP's view, to be aspirational rather than well
founded policy direction based on clear testing and evidence of the needs and
impacts arising from the proposed development of DHGV.
6. It is appreciated that DHGV represents a major new settlement for the Borough,
however the scale and nature of the proposed scheme, even in outline, means that
there needs to be a greater level of precision and evidence set out to support the
design principles, land use mix and proposed infrastructure contained in draft policy
R01 (II).
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
2
Green Infrastructure Buffer/Wedge
7. Policy R01 (II) includes a requirement at Point C (f) for the creation of a:
"green infrastructure buffer/wedge on the eastern boundary with Basildon
Borough to achieve visual separation to help significantly improve the
landscape and habitat value thus reinforcing the beneficial purpose and use
of the Green Belt in that zone".
8. The purpose of the proposed green infrastructure buffer/wedge is unclear and the
justification for such infrastructure is not established in the Plan. LLLP are unclear
what the reinforcement of the "beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that
zone" means or is intended.
9. In LLLP's view, it appears to be simply an attempt to maintain some separation of
DHGV from Laindon in Basildon Borough and thereby avoid, unsuccessfully, the
perceptual and physical coalescence of DHGV with an existing settlement contrary
to the purposes of the Green Belt.
10. The development of DHGV would include a very significant and adverse impact on
the existing landscape character and visual amenity of the area (including land
within Basildon Borough to the east and Thurrock to the south) due to the scales
and nature of the development proposed.
11. No evidence is presented in the draft Local Plan offering a comprehensive
understanding, evaluation or testing of the landscape or visual effects of the
development of DHGV.
12. The presence of a green wedge/buffer to the eastern boundary appears to be more
to screen and separate the proposed new settlement development from Basildon
Borough than as an integral component in a wider landscape strategy. Such a buffer
would not, of itself, serve to mitigate the potential landscape and visual harm arising
from such a substantial scale of new development in the countryside and on land in
the Green Belt.
13. The green infrastructure buffer/wedge therefore appears to be an unjustified
aspirational measure rather than a well-founded, evidenced requirement.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
3
14. LLLP is concerned that the proposed development of DHGV will give rise to very
substantial changes to landscape character and visual amenity and that the Plan
has not offered sufficient analysis or substantive evidence to justify why this is
appropriate or whether it is the most suitable choice to support the Borough's future
housing growth requirements.
Transport Impact Mitigations
15. Policy R01 (II) sets out at Point H that development of DHGV will be required to
mitigate any predicted transport impacts and that these should be monitored and reevaluated
throughout the lifespan of the build out.
16. The policy proposes various transport mitigations, which includes, new junctions to
access the site H(a); at H(b) the creation of a dedicated bus route connecting the
development with West Horndon Station, nearby employment locations and other
key social infrastructure; contributions to school bus services (H(c)); improvements
to West Horndon Station (H(d)) and plans for key connections to surrounding green
infrastructure destinations (H(e)).
17. LLLP are concerned that the transport impacts and proposed mitigations set out in
the policy, including the proposed dedicated bus route have not been effectively
tested and their delivery is uncertain.
18. The policy is not sufficiently clear as to whether a dedicated bus route would be
needed, although the lack of an on-site rail station or public transport hub is obvious
and the relatively remote and poorly connected location, some 1.6+ km distance
from DHGV to West Horndon Station (as the published West Horndon Interchange
& Southern Development Sites Plan (June 2018) shows) is a distinct limitation and
disincentive to the use of public transport.
19. Indeed, the need to contrive new dedicated bus and cycle links to West Horndon
Station indicates how poorly situated and remote the DHGV proposal is in relation
to existing settlements, employment centres and services/facilities.
20. Furthermore, LLLP are concerned that the costs of such transport infrastructure
development have not been properly identified and that there is no certainty of
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
4
securing the requisite land necessary to create a dedicated bus and cycle route from
DHGV to West Horndon.
21. As set out in policy R01 (II) the transport impact mitigation requirements are not, in
LLLP's view, sufficiently substantiated and do not appear to form part of a coherent,
tested transport strategy (including all of the necessary highways capacity and
impact modelling) in order to demonstrate that the DHGV will not have unreasonable
impacts in transport and highways terms.
Viability of Design Principles
22. There does not appear to be current viability assessment evidence available that
shows that DHGV will be a viable development incorporating all of the requirements
set out in Policy R01 (II) and including the requirements of the Council's published
Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).
23. It is noted that a headline viability assessment of DHGV was undertaken as part of
the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) but this identifies that the IDP
was assumed to have a zero cost (paragraph 12.51) and the scheme size modelled
for DHGV was 3,500 dwellings rather larger than the 2,700 dwellings now proposed
in the Local Plan.
24. Indeed, the Local Plan Viability Assessment confirms at paragraph 12.75 that it is:
"premature to provide definitive advice as to the deliverability of the strategic
sites" (which include DHGV).
25. It continues, noting that:
"when the Council has completed the work assessing the strategic
infrastructure and mitigation requirements, it may be necessary to revisit the
analysis".
26. Put simply, there needs to be prepared an updated, comprehensive viability analysis
of the DHGV proposals including all costs, site specific infrastructure requirements,
CIL and modelling of the effects of all of the proposed design and land use
requirements set out in the Local Plan, including those stated in Policy R01 (I) and
R01 (II).
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
5
27. LLLP reserve the right to make further submissions with respect to viability of the
development and its design principles in due course.
Conclusions
28. LLLP object to policy R01 (II) for the reasons set out above. The design
requirements appear to be a mixture of aspiration and emerging ideas rather than a
set of tested, evidenced measures and policies to firmly guide the proposed Garden
Village. The result is a collection of thoughts and expectations for DHGV and LLLP
are concerned that the design proposals are not realistic and it cannot be
demonstrated that they are deliverable.
29. The policy as drafted is unsound as it is not:
* Justified - in terms of representing the most appropriate strategy and
underlying rationale for the design principles and development requirements
set out;
* Effective - in terms of clearly demonstrating that the design principles and
requirements for DHGV are needed, deliverable and viable.

Attachments: